Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Sheffield (Hallam Division), in the room of Sir Louis William Smith, deceased.— [Captain Waterhouse.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Petition for additional Provision) (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. Speaker laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for additional Provision in the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Droitwich Canals (Abandonment) Bill [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Saint Nicholas Millbrook (Southampton) Church (Sale) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

BENEFIT AND ALLOWANCES.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Labour the average weekly payment made to those temporarily and permanently unemployed and included in the 1,800,000 registered unemployed when the records were taken in February?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): In the week ended 18th February, 1939, the average weekly pay-

ment of unemployment benefit under the general scheme was 18s. 2d. and of unemployment allowances 24s. 4d. Separate figures are not available as to persons unemployed for short and persons unemployed for long periods, but in the main the recipients of unemployment assistance are included among the latter.

Mr. Batey: Can the Minister say how many are in receipt of weekly payments and how many in receipt of no payment at all?

Mr. Brown: If the hon. Member will put the question down I will try to get the information.

TRANSFERENCE.

Sir Joseph Leech: asked the Minister of Labour what his Department is doing, by means of a more vigorous policy, to transfer unemployed men and women to meet the periodical demand for indoor labour in holiday resorts; and whether he is experimenting in the Special Areas by means of local personal recruitment to obtain volunteers for indoor employment, and particularly among unemployed persons unsuited for the heavy trades?

Mr. E. Brown: Active steps are taken by the Employment Exchanges to make known the opportunities of seasonal work available, and to bring vacancies to the notice of suitable persons who have had previous experience of the work or appear to possess the qualifications required. Publicity is sought by the exhibition of posters, the distribution of leaflets, the exhibition of cinema slides and the insertion of notices in the Press. Areas where there is a demand for such labour are linked up with areas, including the Special Areas, in which workers are likely to be available. Close co-operation is maintained with employers, with a view to securing early notification of their labour requirements. In order to encourage workers to accept employment available in other districts welfare arrangements are undertaken in co-operation with recognised organisations, chiefly for the benefit of women and girls who are employed away from home for the first time. Courses of training for hotel work are available.

Mr. Day: Are the exhibitions of slides being made by arrangement with the various entertainment associations?

Mr. Brown: Yes, and we also make arrangements with employers' associations and with individual employers.

Mr. Day: Are arrangements made with the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association?

Mr. Brown: I cannot say without notice.

Mr. T. Williams: Apart from this publicity inviting the employés to take these jobs, are the wages and the conditions of work also notified?

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

DOMESTIC SERVICE.

Mr. Liddall: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that there is plenty of well-paid and well-treated domestic employment awaiting women and girls all over the country; whether he has taken further steps to secure that some of the 400,000 unemployed women and girls may be induced to accept employment awaiting them; and, as training centres and Employment Exchanges have failed to supply the demand by drawing on these unemployed women and girls, whether he will ask trade union leaders to help him to find a remedy?

Mr. E. Brown: I am aware of this problem, the essential difficulties of which are widely recognised and are not confined to this country. I am anxious to consider suggestions for a solution from whatever source. As regards the suggestion at the end of the question, my hon. Friend should know that I recently received a deputation from the Trades Union Congress on this subject at which they made a proposal for an inquiry into the conditions of domestic service. I did not, however, feel that such an inquiry at the present time would really serve a useful purpose. I would add that opportunities for domestic employment and training are brought to the notice of all apparently suitable applicants on the register of the Employment Exchanges.

Mr. Liddall: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider setting up a national women's service board to be run on pretty much the same lines as the Milk Marketing Board in order to produce grade A women?

Mr. Lawson: Will the right hon. Gentleman request the hon. Member for Lincoln

(Mr. Liddall) to use his influence with potential employers to support the Domestic Servants' Union so that domestic servants can be protected against the cheap-minded and inconsiderate employer?

Mr. Brown: I am obliged to the hon. Member for raising that issue. It is an interesting fact in the light of the question that for the first time the Trades Union Congress has accepted responsibility for forming this union in order to help domestic servants.

FIFESHIRE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Minister of Labour the number of unemployed persons in the county of Fife who have received training at training centres and the number placed in employment each year since 1935?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that the only information which I have relates to the numbers of men from the county of Fife who were admitted to instructional centres. The numbers were: 80 in 1936, 73 in 1937, and 76 in 1938.

Mr. Gallacher: Have any of these men found employment?

Mr. Brown: I cannot say without making inquiries about each man.

Mr. Gallacher: Is no register kept of those who get employment after they come out of the training centres?

Mr. Brown: It can only be done by a complete searching of the whole records.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. Lunn: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Mr. Jack Smith, aged 19, of School Lane, Emley, who was employed at Messrs. Firth Brothers, Limited, Scissett, Huddersfield, on work of national urgency as an apprentice engineer for 5½ years at £1 per week, was discharged from his employment because he asked for an improvement in his wages, and objected to being paid 6½d. for 1½ hours overtime, and to working 5¾hours without a break for a meal; that the court of referees at Huddersfield, who had these facts before them, disallowed his claim for benefit; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent the occurrence of similar cases?

Mr. E. Brown: I am having inquiry made into this case and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible. I am obliged to him for the information which he sent to me yesterday.

Mr. Lunn: Is it not a fact that firms which engage on work of national importance should pay trade union wages and observe trade union conditions, and will not the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the possibility of firms such as this having Government contracts?

Mr. Brown: I will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have had full inquiries made.

Mr. Lawson: If these facts are as stated, have not the court of referees been badly instructed?

Mr. Brown: I should not care to give a final judgment until I have all the facts.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that young girls of 19 and 20 years of age have had their insurance benefit stopped at Burnley because they would not accept work at a chocolate factory at Norwich, 170 miles away; and will he take steps to restore payment pending full inquiries as to the suitability of the employment and the desirability of breaking up the family life of these young persons?

Mr. Brown: I am having inquiry made in this matter, and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as possible.

Mr. Burke: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly see that benefit does not cease while inquiries are going on? Is he not aware of the strong attachment to home among British folk, and does he think he is doing a good service either to these lasses or their employers by driving them, under the threat of starvation, to seek work so far away from home? Would it not be better to bring work to the people?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is prejudging the case. I will await the evidence, and then perhaps he will care to pursue the matter further.

Mr. Petherick: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it was the willingness of British people to go out and search for work that built up the civilisation and the strength of Britain, and is it realised that it would be a great dis-service to the

spirit of the people and to the country to suggest that people are not to look for work?

HOUSEHOLD MEANS TEST.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether the Unemployment Assistance Board contemplate modifying the household means test in the near future?

Mr. E. Brown: No, Sir.

Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that there is a tremendous amount of hardship in some of these homes where there has been long-term unemployment and where there is a son working, and will he advise the Board to modify their regulations?

Mr. Brown: I was asked a specific question and I have answered it. Perhaps the hon. Member will wait until I have received the report of the Board.

Mr. T. Williams: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that his reply is the best advertisement against any form of National Service?

Mr. Brown: No, I should not say that at all.

Mr. Mander: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what would be the cost of abolishing the household means test?

Mr. Brown: Not without notice.

SCOTLAND.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Minister of Labour the total number of persons at present unemployed in Scotland?

Mr. E. Brown: At 13th March, 1939, there were 255,026 unemployed persons, aged 14 and over, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is the Minister aware that at the moment there are over 100,000 men, women and boys working in Scotland upon the requirements of the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, that everyone is desirous of peace, and that in the event of that desirable aim, peace, being maintained, those 100,000 will in the end be thrown out of work? What provision are the Government making for that situation when it arises?

Mr. Brown: I cannot answer that at Question Time.

Mr. Kirkwood: You are not looking ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions — FILM INDUSTRY (EMPLOYÉS' CONDITIONS).

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the recent inquiry held by his Department into the working conditions and hours of work of persons employed in the cinema industry revealed the fact that many thousands of persons so employed were working over 70 hours a week for salaries under £2 10s. per week, and that their employers did not belong to any association and, accordingly, no agreement could be arrived at between them and the employés' association, he will now state what action he proposes to take to improve or remedy these conditions?

Mr. E. Brown: I am not aware what authority the hon. Member has for the statements contained in the first part of his question. In any case, I am of opinion that the best method of making progress towards the regulation of wages and other conditions in this industry is as stated in my reply of 9th March.

Mr. Day: How is it proposed to deal with those employers who are members of no association?

Mr. Brown: I have already stated that we intend to go on as we are going with very satisfactory results, and we will consider later what happens.

Mr. T. Williams: Where employers' and workers' organisations have entered into agreements to observe certain conditions, and the conditions are not observed by non-members of employers' organisations, what action will the right hon. Gentleman take?

Mr. Brown: I should not care to commit myself on a hypothetical question of that kind. If both organisations make representations to me, I am always willing to consider them, as in the case of any other industry.

Mr. Day: The right hon. Gentleman says he proposes to go on in the same way because of the satisfactory results, but does he realise that these inquiries have been going on for many years?

Mr. Brown: Yes, and the results that have been obtained in the last two years have been more satisfactory than for the whole of the rest of the period.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES.

Mr. Leonard: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered staff representations regarding the need for providing anti-aircraft shelter for staff and applicants at the different Employment Exchanges; whether such shelter has been provided in any cases, and, if so, at which exchanges; and what further action he intends to take at the non-provided exchanges to give effect to the protective shelter policy which is being recommended to private employers of labour?

Mr. E. Brown: The question of air-raid precautions at Employment Exchanges has been discussed with the staff side of the Departmental Whitley Council on various occasions, and close touch with them is being maintained. A survey by the Office of Works of all exchanges in vulnerable areas is in active progress and work is well in hand in a number of places. The work of providing protection at all exchanges in vulnerable areas will be pushed forward as rapidly as possible.

Householder's Shelter.

Mr. Frankel: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is in a position to state the number of householders eligible to receive an Anderson shelter whose premises do not permit of the erection of such a shelter; and what alternative accommodation he proposes to provide?

The Lord Privy Seal (Sir John Anderson): I am not in a position to give the information asked for in the first part of the question. As regards other forms of householder's shelter, directions for the strengthening of basements are about to be issued, and designs for surface shelters in connection with private houses are in an advanced state of preparation.

Mr. Frankel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties of recruiting for Civil Defence is that millions of people in this country are being offered no possibility of security at all?

DURHAM COUNTY.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is aware that in the Boldon urban district, County Durham, in connection with air-raid precautions, there is no mobilisation equipment; and what is being done to meet the situation?

Sir J. Anderson: Mobilisation equipment for county districts cannot be issued until the county council have notified my Department of the depots to which it is to be sent for storage, and in respect of Durham this information was not furnished until quite recently. Considerable quantities of equipment have already been issued to the county for training purposes, and now that the storage arrangements are known further supplies towards mobilisation stocks will be sent immediately.

SHELTER POLICY.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he is in a position to make any further statement with regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to deep air-raid shelters?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Lord Privy Seal whether he can now make a statement concerning the policy he proposes to adopt for providing deep shelter for the population of vulnerable areas?

Sir J. Anderson: The Government are now in a position to announce their policy in regard to the provision of heavily protected shelters against air attack; but, before stating the conclusions arrived at, I should like to summarise the various stages in the development of the Government's shelter policy so that the matter may be viewed as a whole and in proper perspective.
The House may recollect that on 3rd November last my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated that it would be the policy of the Government to provide protection against splinter, blast and the fall of debris for all in vulnerable areas who could not fairly be expected to provide it for themselves. A fortnight later, after certain preliminary work had been carried out Departmentally, I called to my aid in settling the details of this policy three engineers of great eminence recommended for this purpose at my request by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers. These engineers, working in conjunction with the technical advisers of my Department, presented their report on 20th December; and before the House rose for the Christmas Recess I made a detailed statement of the means by which effect was to be given to that policy and of the special Exchequer assistance to be made available.
It will be recalled that the policy involved the adoption of a variety of expedients according to the varying conditions under which protection had to be provided. As the House knows, the first item in that policy comprised the distribution on a very large scale of a simple type of portable steel shelter suitable for erection in the gardens or yards of two-storey dwelling-houses. The distribution of these shelters began on the 20th February and has proceeded at a rate substantially in excess of the estimates originally made by the engineers. Already over 300,000 unit shelters capable of sheltering up to 1,500,000 people have been distributed; and distribution will for the future proceed at an accelerated rate.
The next item consisted in the strengthening of suitable basements. It had been hoped that the execution of this part of the policy would proceed with equal expedition: but it soon became clear that grave doubts were entertained in certain quarters—doubts based partly on an interpretation or misinterpretation of experience in Spain and partly on considerations of a more technical character —whether basements could in fact, be made reasonably safe by the methods proposed. I felt, therefore, that before proceeding to action on a large scale it was essential that these doubts should be cleared up by further investigation and practical tests. The necessary experiments were at once taken in hand under the guidance of the three engineers already referred to. They have necessarily taken time, as the results of each test had to be studied and interpreted before the next could be arranged. The last test was completed only a fortnight ago. The result has been to demonstrate the soundness of the strengthening device proposed.
Accordingly, steps were taken on 4th April to place the first orders for material; which had necessarily been held in abeyance pending the results of these tests, and simultaneously, with the collaboration of the professional institutions and of the trades concerned in building and civil engineering work, an organisation has been created to assist the local authorities in carrying out as speedily as possible the surveys and subsequent structural work, not only for the strutting of suitable basements but for the execution of the various alternative


courses recommended in the engineer's report in cases in which neither the portable shelter nor the strutted basement could provide a satisfactory solution. There remained the question of the deep or heavily protected shelter, which as I have explained to the House on previous occasions—would be in addition to, and not in substitution for, any part of the policy of lighter protection on which the Government have already determined.
When my Department came to grips with that problem it speedily became clear that both technical and non-technical considerations of great complexity were involved and that, while certain broad conclusions could be formulated at once, further technical investigations of a fundamental character would be essential before a final judgment could be put forward with any confidence as the basis of a practical policy. For example, the data available in this country or from sources abroad were markedly deficient in regard to such matters as the physical characteristics of what is known as blast and its physiological effects and the effect of concussion on structures buried or partly buried in the earth. The resources of an enlarged and strengthened research department were brought to bear on these problems, and at the same time various projects which had been submitted for my consideration, including what is known as the Finsbury scheme, and certain proposals for car park shelters, were submitted for examination and advice to independent experts of the highest standing. Taking advantage of the time which these investigations would inevitably occupy I thought it desirable to convene a special conference to assist me by bringing under independent review all the considerations, non-technical as well as technical, which bear upon the problem.
That conference—which met under the chairmanship of Lord Hailey and included the Hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks), for whose ready collaboration I am very grateful—has now submitted a most comprehensive and valuable report. This has been laid before Parliament, and copies will be available in the Vote Office this afternoon. Hon. Members will find in the report itself a full statement of the considerations which the conference took into account, and I need only state the decisions which the Government have reached after considering the report and the results so far available of the various

technical investigations to which I have referred. These are as follow:
First, no grounds are shown for departing from the policy of blast and splinter proof protection already announced and summarised earlier in this statement, and the Government will accordingly make every effort to assure its being carried out as speedily as possible in vulnerable areas.
Second, an attempt to provide bomb-proof shelters on any general scale would prove impossible in practice, and would be a mistaken policy.
Third, there is a case for providing heavily protected shelter for certain key points and certain vital services.
Fourth, technical advice will be afforded as speedily as possible to industrialists and others as to the form or forms which such shelters might take.
These are the governing decisions which have been taken in this matter. Broadly, the Government have accepted the principles of the report of the Hailey Conference, though there remain a number of points on which further consideration is required. In particular, it will rest with the Government to indicate, through the appropriate Departments, in what cases more heavily protected shelter is considered desirable in the interests of all concerned. This will present a difficult problem of selection, but it is hoped that by proceeding first with the most obvious and urgent cases a solution representing a fair balance of considerations will be worked out. In the meantime, the Government earnestly hope that all concerned will proceed as rapidly as possible, with the provision of shelter proof against blast, splinter and the fall of debris, for all people in areas exposed to risk whether at their work, in their homes or in the streets.

Mr. White: May I ask whether the powers proposed in the Bill at present under consideration will be sufficient to enable this policy to be carried out?

Sir J. Anderson: Yes, Sir. Everything I have described in the statement will be within the terms either of the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, or of the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman has now decided to rely on protection against blasts and splinters, will be tell the House when he proposes to expedite the completion of trenches in the public parks? May I ask whether he recalls a statement which he made in this House several weeks ago that this work


was in progress, and can he explain why the work still remains unfinished? When is he going to get a move on?

Sir J. Anderson: These questions are rather outside the scope of the statement I have made. As to the first point, I think I shall carry the House with me when I say that I have at all times been most careful to avoid holding out any expectation that the ultimate decision would be other than that which I have announced.

Mr. Shinwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman now say whether he proposes to expedite the work in relation to trenches? What is his view now?

Sir J. Anderson: There was a question on the Paper which I was quite prepared to answer in regard to trenches, and I will circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT if. it is so desired.

Mr. Shinwell: This is a most important matter, and, in view of the statement made many weeks ago by the right hon. Gentleman that this work was in progress, and that he now says he has decided to abandon the long-term policy, may I ask what protection is being afforded in the public parks?

Sir J. Anderson: I have not said anything in the statement bearing on the question of trenches. I have said that such delays as have occurred in the completion of trenches were, to a very large extent, due to causes outside the control of the Department. Perhaps hon. Members will await the statement.

Mr. H. G. Williams: May I ask whether in connection with the more heavily protected shelters there will be an increased rate of Government grant to local authorities and to employers?

Sir J. Anderson: No, Sir. The approved expenditure in this case will rank for grant on the terms laid down in the Air-Raid Precautions Act, 1937, in the case of local governments, and as proposed in the Civil Defence Bill in the case of employers.

Sir William Davison: May I ask when the pamphlet which my right hon. Friend promised to publish after Easter giving advice to large householders who propose to provide basement protection at their own expense, will be issued?

Sir J. Anderson: I hope at the beginning of next week.

Sir Percy Harris: Are we to gather from the statement that at certain special points deep shelters are to be provided that it means that local authorities will be encouraged to provide them, or are they to be ruled out altogether?

Sir J. Anderson: What I said towards the end of the statement, the third decision, is that there is a case for providing heavily protected shelter for certain key points and certain vital services.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: If there is a case for providing heavily protected deep shelters for key points, is there not an equal case for providing them for the civilian population? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will cause considerable apprehension? Is it intended that facilities will be given f or a Debate on this subject?

Sir J. Anderson: The statement I have made is intended to be read with the report which is being made this afternoon, and which will be available to hon. Members at once.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the very balanced policy which he has announced of providing varying degrees of protection according to the varying degrees of danger in different areas, will meet with widespread approval?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is that a correct description of the policy? Has not the right hon. Gentleman told us that it was not in accordance with the degree of danger to which the civil population is exposed that shelters are to be provided, but in accordance with the importance of the service which has to be safeguarded?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait for the White Paper.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Are there special reasons for excluding the civil population in vulnerable areas from having the heavily protected shelters which he proposes to provide for key services? Is it merely a question of finance?

Sir J. Anderson: It is certainly not a question of finance, as the hon. Member will see from the report.

Oral Answers to Questions — FURNITURE INDUSTRY (WAGES AND CONDITIONS).

Mr. McEntee: asked the Minister of Labour whether any progress has been made in the efforts to regulate wages and conditions in the furniture industry; what organisations of employers and of work men his Department has recently held conversations with; whether there is a readiness to negotiate on a standard of wages and conditions amongst these organisations; which organisations re fused to negotiate; and will he make a statement in regard to the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: Discussions have been taking place, on the employers' side, with organisations throughout the country which are members of the British Furniture Trades Committee and the Furniture Manufacturers' Association and, on the workers' side, with the trade unions having members engaged in the industry, with a view to formulating a scheme for the effective regulation of wages and working conditions. No organisation has refused to co-operate with the Department in these discussions, and further meetings will shortly be held.

Mr. McEntee: Has any organisation refused to enter into an agreement of any kind with the workmen with the object of settling standards of wages and conditions?

Mr. Brown: I would prefer at the moment, since negotiations are going on with the Department, to make no further comment. The situation is not an easy one.

Mr. McEntee: I am aware that the situation is not an easy one, but is not the right hon. Gentleman prepared to answer a question whether any organisations have refused to enter into an agreement on wages and conditions?

Mr. Brown: I prefer to make no comment at the moment. With regard to the Department, no organisation has refused to take part in discussions. Since further meetings are to be held, I prefer to maintain my first answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPREAD-OVER HOLIDAYS.

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour what recent steps have been taken by his Department to induce

the spreading out of holidays among industrial people; and whether he will bring to the notice of local authorities, industrialists, and officials of organisations in the South the advantages of the long hours of daylight during May and June in Scotland with a view to attracting visitors from the South?

Mr. E. Brown: As I stated in my reply to the hon. and learned Member for East Cardiff (Mr. T. Morris) on 29th November, the spreading of holidays is very largely a matter for industrial organisations and municipal authorities to settle in the light of local circumstances. I may mention also that my Department is co-operating with a representative Holidays Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Amulree which has been formed under the auspices of the Industrial Welfare Society and that one of the sub-committees of this committee is concerned with the spread-over of holidays. With regard to the second part of the question, in so far as the attractions of Scotland as a holiday area are not already known to persons in the South, I would suggest that this is a matter deserving of the attention of the authorities in the holiday resorts in Scotland.

Mr. Gibson: Is anything being done to point out that the earlier months of the year are very appropriate for holidays, and that unless something is done to spread holidays over the earlier months there will be serious congestion during what are called the holiday months?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member is pointing out what was pointed out at great length by the Amulree Committee, as a result of which this committee has been formed to help.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE.

Mr. Hamilton Kerr: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will consider recommending to the British Broad casting Corporation a daily National Ser vice appeal lasting for five minutes and spoken by different outstanding public men?

Mr. E. Brown: My Department is in constant touch with the British Broadcasting Corporation upon the subject of National Service publicity. The Corporation have given facilities for broadcast


talks, discussions and news items dealing with different aspects of National Service. I am sure that similar facilities will continue to be available, and I will see that my hon. Friend's suggestion is not overlooked.

Mr. T. Williams: In connection with invitations to outstanding personalities, will an opportunity be given to some unemployed person to speak?

Mr. Brown: I have no doubt we could find unemployed persons who would be very glad to speak about National Service, as numbers of them have volunteered and are serving now.

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to fix an early day for consideration of the voluntary response to the call for National Service, which the Government agreed in December last should come up for review at the end of March?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I am not yet in a position to state the date for the Debate on National Service.

Mr. Lunn: Will further financial assistance be given to the local authorities, in view of the circular sent out yesterday, asking them to accelerate their work for Civil Defence?

The Prime Minister: That is a different question. Perhaps the hon. Member will put it down.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

Milk, School Children (Lancashire).

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education which Lancashire local authorities are supplying to school children one pint of milk a day; and also which authorities deliver the milk to the homes concerned during the holidays?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): I understand that in the Lancashire county area and in Wigan the amount of free milk supplied to necessitous undernourished children who do not also receive free dinners is usually one pint a day. In the other Lancashire areas where free milk is given the usual amount is either one-third or two-thirds of a pint, though some children receive

a pmt a day. Where arrangements are made for the supply to be continued during the holidays the children attend centres where the milk is distributed; so far as I am aware the milk is not in any case delivered by the local education authority to the homes of the children, but if a child is prevented by illness from attending the centre the parents can arrange for the milk to be taken to the child's home.

Mr. Pilkington: Does not the hon. Gentleman think it will be better to raise the amount of milk given in ail cases to a pint, as a certain amount of distress is felt in those areas where the two systems are working side by side?

Mr. Lindsay: We urge that at least two-thirds of a pint should be given, but it is up to the local education authorities.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it really the case that there are people in this country, not refugees, who axe so hard up that we have to come to this House and beg for them to be given a pint of milk a day? Is that the case?

Mr. Lindsay: No, Sir.

Mr. McEntee: What percentage of local authorities supply milk during the holidays?

Mr. Lindsay: I could not say without notice. I shall be pleased to let the hon. Member know.

SCHOOL MEALS (CARDIFF).

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education what action he proposes to take to deal with the unsatisfactory school feeding arrangements in the city of Cardiff as revealed in a recent investigation by his officers?

Mr. Lindsay: The Board wrote to the Cardiff local education authority in January last setting out the defects in the feeding arrangements revealed by the investigation of their officers and invited the authority to send representatives to discuss the matter. An interview has now been arranged for next Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

MANCHESTER AND LIVERPOOL.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health the number of vacant dwellings,


houses and flats, and their rateable value in Manchester and Liverpool on the latest date these records were last taken, and at the same date what number of dwellings were owned by these authorities, and further, what number at the same date were in construction and contemplated under the slum clearance and overcrowding schemes, respectively?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I understand that on 1st April, 1938, there were in Manchester 4,406 vacant dwellings of a rateable value of about £80,000. At that date the corporation owned 28,398 dwellings and had 4,427 under construction or in contemplation for slum clearance or for the abatement of overcrowding. No figures are available of the number of vacant dwellings in Liverpool. The corporation of Liverpool own about 39,000 dwellings and have about 15,500 under construction or in contemplation, of which about 5,000 are for the abatement of overcrowding, and the remainder for slum clearance.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Will the Ministry of Health consider the desirability of relieving local authorities of their statutory obligations in the matter of slum clearance and overcrowding where there are an adequate number of empty houses in the district?

Mr. Bernays: Four-fifths of the house building is done by private enterprise, and it is, therefore, for private enterprise to study the market.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Am I to understand that the hon. Gentleman thinks that private enterprise will see that local authorities carry out their statutory obligations?

Mr. Bernays: I did not say that.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not realised that several thousands of empty houses would be needed if people are to move from one to the other?

Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that the moral to be drawn from the question is that this House should sanction the rating of empty property, so as to bring empty dwellings into use?

Mr. Craven-Ellis: How can the rating of empty properties solve the problem?

ROAD CHARGES.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the indiscriminate apportionment by local authorities according to frontage of the cost of construction of roads flanking premises of property owners whether deriving advantage or the reverse therefrom; and what steps he proposes to abate the injustice occasioned?

Mr. Bernays: The law relating to private street works is at present under review by the Highway Law Consolidation Committee, and the particular problem to which my hon. Friend refers is receiving their attention.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I raised this matter in the House some years ago, and how long does he think it will be before this injustice is removed?

Mr. Bernays: I could not anticipate the findings of the committee or say when its deliberations will be concluded.

Sir Arnold Wilson: Is the committee likely to recommend any modifications in the law seeing that it is a consolidating committee?

Mr. Bernays: We shall have to await the report of the committee.

Mr. Lyons: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are many instances of owner-occupiers of small houses who are called upon to pay large sums for road development, and will he make some representations to local authorities in the matter?

Mr. Bernays: All these questions are being examined by the committee, and we are awaiting its report.

Mr. Thorne: Is it not the duty of an occupier to find out whether the road has been made up or not?

POULTRY-KEEPING (LOCAL AUTHORITIES' ESTATES).

Mr. John Morgan: asked the Minister of Health what steps he has taken to advise local authorities concerning the keeping of poultry on their housing estates?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend is referring this matter to the Central Housing Advisory Committee for consideration and report.

BUILDING BY-LAWS.

Major Despencer Robertson: asked the Minister of Health whether he considers that he will be in a position to sanction modifications of the model building by-laws issued by his Department, in connection with the Public Health Act, 1936, before 31st July, when all other building by-laws will cease to have effect, or will he allow existing by-laws to remain in force until he has arrived at a decision on such modifications?

Mr. Bernays: Building by-laws already submitted are being considered with all possible expedition and my right hon. Friend has urged all local authorities who have not yet submitted such by-laws, to do so at the earliest possible moment; but he has found it necessary to indicate that, owing to the shortness of time available, he cannot now undertake to examine any proposals for new by-laws which involve modifications of the model series unless these suggestions are of a minor character and are fully justified by local circumstances. My right hon. Friend is not at present in a position to say what steps it may be necessary or desirable to take under powers available to him in relation to any areas where, for any reason, new by-laws may not have been submitted and confirmed by 31st July next.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE.

Mr. Lyons: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the growing apprehension caused by the constant increase of the burden of local taxation, he will consider calling a conference of local authorities, with a view to recommending steps, in the national interest, for the reduction and stabilisation of local rates?

Mr. Bernays: I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the reply given to him on 1st November last. My right hon. Friend doubts if a conference of the kind suggested would produce useful results.

Mr. Lyons: Will my hon. Friend consider making some representation to local authorities to get at least a stabilisation of a burden which is now becoming intolerable to millions of people in this country?

Mr. Paling: Will not the Government consider doing something for the local authorities in view of the fact that the local authorities do a great deal for the Government?

Mr. Stephen: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the solution to these difficulties will be found in the taxation of land values?

Oral Answers to Questions — CENSUS ENUMERATORS (UNEMPLOYED MEN).

Mr. George Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether, in connection with the taking of the next Census, instructions will be given that unemployed man shall be taken on in preference to those who already have occupations?

Mr. Bernays: Enumerators must be engaged a considerable period in advance of the Census, on conditions which bind them to serve without fail at the Census date. The duties are normally equivalent to not more than about a week's work, at corresponding remuneration. Experience has, however, shown that in very many cases unemployed persons cannot enter into the necessary undertaking without prejudice to their chances of obtaining some other regular employment which might be offered in the meantime.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that there are many unemployed men of ability who could do this work, will the hon. Gentleman see that they get a chance before men who are drawing big salaries?

Mr. Bernays: An experiment of that kind was tried in 1931, and it was not successful.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the known pressure of some employers to induce young employés to join certain approved societies, he will consider altering the regulations whereby such young persons may be allowed at least six months to transfer from one society to another without payment of fee?

Mr. Bernays: A juvenile contributor who wishes to transfer his membership from one society to another may do so on payment of a fee of 6d. The question


of allowing a juvenile contributor to transfer without payment of a transfer fee has already been noted for consideration, but amending legislation would be necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MATERNITY CENTRE, WHISTON.

Mr. Pilkington: asked the Minister of Health whether the plans for the new maternity unit at Whiston county hospital have yet been passed; and when building is to begin?

Mr. Bernays: No proposals have yet been submitted to my right hon. Friend, but he is communicating with the county council in the matter.

Mr. Pilkington: As the area which these hospitals serve has had a fourfold increase in population in recent years, will the hon. Gentleman expedite this matter, which is very urgent?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir, I will do what I can.

IRON LUNGS (LIVERPOOL).

Mr. Kirby: asked the Minister of Health whether he can now state what hospitals in the city of Liverpool are equipped with the apparatus known as iron lungs?

Mr. Bernays: I am making inquiries from the local authority, and will communicate with the hon. Member.

BREAD (WATER CONTENT).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health the percentage of water content in the bread sold in England and in the United States, respectively?

Mr. Bernays: I have no recent information as to the average water content of bread sold in this country. In the United States, as I understand, certain kinds of bread are defined as having a maximum of 38 per cent. of moisture one hour or more after baking, but I have no further information.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my hon. Friend take steps to find out this information, which can be obtained, and is it not very desirable in the interests of the country that those figures should be obtained?

Mr. Bernays: I will see what can be done.

Mr. De la Bère: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that I really mean that I want the information?

Mr. Bernays: I bore that in mind in giving my answer.

Mr. J. Morgan: Is there no standard for water in bread as there is for water in milk?

Mr. Bernays: No, Sir, there is none.

Mr. Leslie Boyce: Is it not a fact that there is about 98 per cent. of water in an individual?

PROPOSED REFUSE TIP, MONMOUTH.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the proposal of the Monmouth Town Council to establish a refuse tip in a thickly populated area has aroused intense local opposition because of the health and amenity dangers involved, and the close proximity of two dairies and two schools; whether he has considered a petition of protest from local residents; and whether he will take steps to satisfy himself regarding the wisdom or otherwise of the proposal?

Mr. Bernays: My right hon. Friend is aware of the proposal and has received a petition of protest. He understands that an order for the compulsory purchase of the proposed site is to be submitted to him by the town council for confirmation. He would, in that case, direct the holding of a public local inquiry into the matter.

BURNING PIT-HEAP, WIGAN.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: asked the Minister of Health on what date the last inspection was made of the burning pit- heap at the Garswood Hall Collieries Company, Limited, Bryn, near Wigan; whether he is aware that it is as big a nuisance as ever; and whether he will have immediate steps taken to bring about an abatement of this nuisance?

Mr. Bernays: The last inspection was made on 29th March. Works are under construction to enable the heap to be attacked with water which should produce good results.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSINERS (PUBLIC ASSISTANCE).

Mr. David Adams: asked the Minister of Health the total number of


old age pensioners, and the number and percentage of these in receipt of Poor Law relief?

Mr. Bernays: At 31st December, 1938, the latest date for which figures are available, there were 2,380,913 persons in England and Wales in receipt of old age pensions under the Old Age Pensions Act and the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act. On 1st January, 1939, the number of old age pensioners in receipt of poor relief was 250,291, or approximately 10.5 per cent. of the total number.

Mr. Adams: Does the Minister see in this situation any justification for altering the amounts granted to old age pensioners?

Mr. Lipson: What amount was paid in Poor Law relief to these old age pensioners?

Mr. Bernays: I could not answer that question without notice.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will the Minister agree that, in the light of those figures, it is clear that the old age pension is inadequate and that in respect of 250,000 persons the Treasury has to be subsidised out of the local rates; and will he take those matters into account when considering the representations made to him by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons) for the reduction of rates?

Mr. Lawson: Is the Minister aware that the heaviest burden falls upon the poorest areas?

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Health how many old age pensioners there are in the county borough of Burnley; how many of these are on poor relief; and what is the cost to the town of these payments to old age pensioners?

Mr. Bernays: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the question is not available, as the records of old age pensioners are not kept on a territorial basis. The number of old age pensioners in Burnley to whom out-relief in money and kind was granted during the week ending nth March, 1939, was 823, and the total cost of the out-relief granted to those pensioners and their dependants during that week was £267.

Mr. Burke: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the augmentation of old age

pensions means an additional 6½d. on the poor rate for Burnley, while in Bournemouth the figure is only Id.; and what does he propose to do to remedy such inequalities, which press particularly hardly on the depressed areas?

Mr. Bernays: That position is met by the block grant.

Mr. Thorne: Is not the block grant system out of date?

Oral Answers to Questions — INJURED PERSONS (REHABILITATION).

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Minister of Health what steps have been taken hitherto to give effect to the recommendations of the Interim Report on the Rehabilitation of Injured Persons, of February, 1937?

Mr. Bernays: The attention of local authorities was called to this report in Circular 1632 of 3rd June, 1937, and subsequent local developments of fracture clinics have had regard to the interim recommendations.

Sir A. Wilson: Has any action been taken?

Mr. Bernays: Yes, Sir. I understand that about 12 hospitals, mainly voluntary hospitals, have already provided fracture clinics pending the publication of the report.

Sir A. Wilson: Is it possible for the hon. Gentleman to publish their names in the Official Report if I put a question down, so that the public may know what progress has been made with this very important matter?

Mr. Bernays: If the hon. Member will put down the question I shall be very glad to answer it.

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can yet state when the Delevigne Committee on Rehabilitation of Persons Injured by Industrial Accidents will publish its final report; and whether the evidence tendered to the committee will be published simultaneously?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend understands that the committee are considering their draft report, and that they hope to present it at


an early date. As regards the last part of the question, as indicated in the reply given on 7th February last, it is not possible to say at present how much of the information obtained by the committee will be published with the report.

Sir A. Wilson: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that a copy of some part at least of the evidence will be published or placed in the Library, in view of its relevance to the work of the Royal Commission on Workmen's Compensation?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (STAFFORDSHIRE).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health what action he proposes to take with reference to the case of John Shone, 19½, Alma Street, Willenhall, Staffordshire, who, before obtaining a grant of 10s. per week from the Prince of Wales' British Legion Pension Fund, received an assurance in writing from the Staffordshire County Council, Bilston Guardians Committee, on 7th July, 1933, that any such pension would be disregarded, and no reduction of relief made in consequence thereof, in view of the fact that a reduction has, in fact, been made?

Mr. Bernays: I am making inquiries into the case and will communicate with the hon. Member.

Mr. Mander: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is very strong local feeling on this subject, as it is felt that a definite promise given in writing has been broken, and will he use his good offices with the county council on the subject?

Mr. Bernays: I am under the impression from the information which I have available at present that the county council, in fact, made a mistake in making that promise, but I will make inquiries.

Mr. Mander: Would the Minister consider introducing legislation to make it possible to remedy this injustice?

Oral Answers to Questions — SILICOSIS.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when and to what extent he is proposing to revise the regulations dealing with silicosis; and will he also consider chang-

ing the three-years rule and make a statement on the whole matter?

Mr. Lloyd: As regards the first part of the question, my right hon. Friend understands that the hon. Member is referring to the proposals for extending the requirement of periodic medical examinations to additional processes in the pottery industry. The employers have asked for an opportunity to discuss several points in connection with these proposals and an interview has been arranged to take place very shortly. As regards the three years' limit, a draft order extending the three years to five years has been prepared, and my right hon. Friend has asked the National Federation of Employers' Organisations and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress to furnish him with their observations upon it. My right hon. Friend expects to be in a position to make a decision on these questions at an early date.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Is it proposed to consider in the meantime the fact, that is not disputed, that the disease takes 10, 15, or 20 years to develop to the stage where it disables the worker, and would the hon. Gentleman consider the desirability of removing the three-year limit without consulting any other body?

Mr. Lloyd: According to our calculations some 85 per cent. of the hard cases with which the hon. Member and the House are familiar will be dealt with by this extension to five years, but my right hon. Friend feels that the whole question should be examined by the Royal Commission before there is a more drastic extension.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the 15 per cent. which, it is admitted, will be left outside, are entitled to consideration?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, I said they were entitled to consideration, but to extend the period beyond five years raises further difficult questions which my right hon. Friend feels should have thorough examination by the Royal Commission.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Home Secretary whether he will cause an investigation to be made into the incidence of silicosis among the slateminers and quarrymen in the Festiniog district in North Wales with a view to bringing


them within the scope of the Various Industries Silicosis Schemes?

Mr. Lloyd: The incidence of silicosis amongst slate miners and quarrymen in the Festiniog area has recently been the subject of investigation by one of the officers of the Welsh National Memorial Association, and inquiry has also been made, through the Mines Department and the Geological Survey, into the nature of the rocks encountered in this district. The results seem to indicate that, in this area at any rate, the men are exposed to some risk, and that cases of silicosis have occurred. My right hon. Friend has reason to think that the terms of the existing Scheme are probably wide enough to cover such cases, but he is having a memorandum prepared showing the actual position, and proposes to consult the Joint Industrial Council for the Industry in regard to the desirability of some further provision in the Scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE (PASSPORTS).

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the cost and time occupied by the police in London and elsewhere, he will consider, as a special measure to be taken in conjunction with the Government of Eire, the institution of a system of passes or passports, in order that there may be some control over persons leaving Eire who are known to, or suspected by, the police, yet whose movements cannot be interfered with until after an offence has been committed?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): The suggestion contained in my hon. Friend's question has not been overlooked, but any such proposal raises a number of considerations which require careful examination, and it is not at present possible to say whether such a measure as he proposes would be practicable and advantageous.

Sir R. Glyn: Is there any possibility of bringing in some regulations to protect British property, in view of the great danger which at present exists?

Sir S. Hoare: That is a different question. This question deals with passports. The difficulty with passports is that the

control of passports is not of much use unless you have the powers of refusal of entry and of deportation.

Sir R. Glyn: Does my right hon. Friend propose to take steps to deal with this matter, which is causing great anxiety at the moment?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir; I have it constantly in mind. The difficulty is to find the best method of dealing with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SENTENCE, EAST SUSSEX QUARTER SESSIONS.

Mr. A. Edwards: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the case of Frederick Jones, aged 29, sentenced at the East Sussex Quarter Sessions at Lewes, on Tuesday, 4th April, to three months hard labour, in addition to a partly served sentence of two months, despite his plea that the offence of housebreaking had been committed because his wife and children were starving; and whether, in view of the fact that the police testified that when Jones was arrested there was no food in the house, he will consider remitting this sentence?

Sir S. Hoare: I have caused inquiry to be made, and am informed that all the relevant circumstances were put before the court of quarter sessions. I regret that I can find no sufficient grounds to justify me in recommending any remission of the sentence. Jones's wife and children have, I understand, returned to relatives in Birmingham, where they are being looked after.

Mr. Edwards: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chairman said that this case was one of great sadness, and then proceeded to send the man to three months hard labour, in addition to the previous sentence of two months? Is he also aware that the police testified that when the man was arrested there was no food in the house and that he and his family were starving, and that the police officers themselves assisted them; and will the right hon. Gentleman explain why this man should not have assistance, rather than a penalty of this kind?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not prepared to break the invariable rule of Home Secretaries and give reasons why the prerogative of mercy is or is not exercised. All


these facts, which were before the court of quarter sessions, have been taken into account. If the hon. Member would like to see further details about the case, I shall be quite ready to show him.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAZI ORGANISATIONS AND PROPAGANDA, ENGLAND.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Sectary whether he is aware that Herr Ernst Lahrmann, of Liverpool, combines the post of representative of the Leipzig Industies Fair with that of a keypoint leader of the German Labour Front; whether he is aware of the complaints of this gentleman attempting to intimidate Germans resident in this country into joining the labour front; and whether any steps are being taken to stop this form of activity?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not yet in a position to add to the answer which I gave on Tuesday to the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan).

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that this intimidation is going on with greater intensity than ever before? Is he aware that a young German, attending a meeting of refugees last night, had to appear with his face covered, so that he could not be recognised by the agents of this individual?

Sir S. Hoare: I have told the House more than once that I am looking very carefully into these cases, and I am investigating this one. I have taken action within the last week or two in connection with certain individuals, and I am watching the position very carefully.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Liverpool resent the activities of this man, and expect some action to be taken very quickly?

Sir S. Hoare: I have said that I am already looking into the case, but, until my investigation is completed, I cannot make any further statement.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the Home Secretary how many societies exist in this country for the propagation of Nazi philosophy among Germans resident in Great Britain?

Sir S. Hoare: The principal body is the English branch of the Auslands Organisation of the National Socialist German Workers Party which is sectionally and regionally organised. As regards other societies, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave yesterday to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander).

Mr. Adams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the existence of these bodies is keenly resented in this country?

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED PREMISES (GAMES).

Mr. Alan Herbert: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the pronouncements of certain licensing benches against the playing of darts and other innocent and skilful games on licensed premises; what is the statutory authority by which licensing justices are able to veto such activities; and will he draw the attention of all licensing benches to the report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, 1929–31, which found that games, music, and the like, have a definite value as distractions from the mere business of drinking and expressed the hope that steps would be taken to secure the discontinuance of any policy of discouragement of lawful games in licensed premises?

Sir S. Hoare: I have seen reports of a statement recently made by the Liverpool Licensing Justices on this subject. Section 79 of the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, prohibits gaming (that is, the playing of games for money or money's worth) on licensed premises, but licensing justices have no power to veto any lawful games, and I am in general agreement with the views expressed by the Royal Commission as to the desirability of encouraging such games "as a distraction from the mere business of drinking." In certain cases, however, in view of the special difficulties experienced by the licensees in their area in preventing gaming, licensing justices have, I believe, expressed disapproval of the playing of any games on licensed premises, and I am informed that this is what occurred recently in Liverpool. I have no reason to doubt that licensing benches generally are well aware of the recommendation of the Royal Commission, and in any case


I am glad to think that my hon. Friend's question has called attention to the position.

Mr. Kirby: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Liverpool the licensing justices are really anti-licensing justices, of a very narrow frame of mind?

Mr. Herbert: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to paragraph 381 of the Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, 1929 to 1931, to the effect that in the State public-houses at Carlisle the provision of facilities for playing games has been adopted as a matter of policy; and whether this is still the policy of His Majesty's Government?

Sir S. Hoare: I am aware of the statement of the Royal Commission to which my hon. Friend refers. There has been no change since the Royal Commission reported in the policy of providing facilities for playing games in public houses in the Carlisle State Management District.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that the conditions in Carlisle are quite different from those in privately-owned public houses?

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS.

Sir A. Wilson: asked the Home Secretary how many aliens present themselves every week on the average at Bow Street police station; whether he is aware that the long waiting queues which they form arouse most unfavourable comments; and whether he can arrange for their reception in some less public place?

Mr. Hepworth: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the daily long queue of aliens at the Aliens Registration Office; and whether he will consider a system of decentralising passport examination?

Sir S. Hoare: The average weekly number of aliens calling at this office during recent weeks has been over 3,000, and it has been necessary at times to arrange a queue of waiting people extending into a little frequented thoroughfare adjoining the office. The desirability of improving the existing arrangements has not been overlooked, but the difficulties created by the present abnormal

situation are great, and hitherto it has not been possible to obviate these difficulties. Efforts are still being made for this purpose.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (BROADCASTING).

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give consideration to the need to have the proceedings of the House of Commons broadcast on suitable occasions?

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave on 7th February, 1938, in reply to a question by the hon. Member for Southwark, Central (Mr. Day).

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY.

Mr. White: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any further statement with regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to a Ministry of Supply?

The Prime Minister: His Majesty's Government have decided that a Bill should be introduced as soon as possible to set up a Ministry of Supply under a Minister who will be a member of the Cabinet. The Bill introduced to give effect to this decision will be so framed as to enable a Ministry of Supply in the full sense to be set up. For the time being, however, the scope of the new Ministry will be confined by administrative action to the following matters:

"(1) It will deal with the problems of Army Supply, considerably expanded as they have been by the recent decisions to increase the strength of the Army;
(2) The Ministry will take over responsibility for certain stores of general user which the War Office at present already supplies to other Government Departments, including certain Civil Defence requirements. It is intended that this system should be progressively extended as found desirable;
(3) The new Ministry will also take over responsibility for the acquisition and maintenance of the reserves of essential metals and other raw materials required in connection with the Defence programmes."

The branches to be transferred from the War Office to the new Ministry will include the branches responsible for research, design and experiment, production and inspection, and the Royal Ordnance Factories.
The Bill to be laid before Parliament will, among other things, include provisions designed to secure priority for Government orders.
It is proposed to establish a Ministerial Priority Committee on the lines of the committee which towards the end of the last War performed the duty of settling questions of priority resulting from demands from the several Services.
With the approval of the King, I am able to announce that the Minister in charge of the new Department will be my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Transport.

Mr. Attlee: Why is it not proposed to extend the activities of the Ministry of Supply so as to deal with other Departments than the War Office, seeing that it was the question especially of the rivalry between the Departments on priority schemes which was dealt with by the Ministry of Munitions in the War, and which caused so much trouble until the Ministry of Munitions was set up?

The Prime Minister: The reason is that at present the arrangements for supply in the case of the Admiralty and the Air Force are working extremely well, and it is felt that to interfere with those arrangements at the present time might have the effect of reducing rather than increasing output. But, as I have explained, the powers in the proposed Bill will enable a Ministry of Supply, in the full sense, to be set up if at any time we think it desirable.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Title and scope of the Bill be such that this House will be able, if it so desires, to extend it by Amendment, in order that it shall cover the full provision of a Ministry of Supply which has been urged so often from all parts of the House?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think it will.

Mr. White: Why will not the Minister of Supply under this Bill, have a general power of deciding priority for the three Services from the start?

The Prime Minister: It is necessary, I think, to have a superior authority. In the first instance, this Minister will be particularly concerned with Army supplies, so it is necessary to have a superior authority to attend to the needs of other Departments.

Mr. H. Morrison: Is it intended that the Minister of Transport should continue to hold his present office, as well as the new office; and is it proposed to protect the needs of local authorities as to their requirements in relation to Civil Defence?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first part of the question, obviously the Minister of Supply could not also carry on the duties of Minister of Transport. I said, "the present Minister of Transport." I meant to imply by that that he would have to give up that office. With regard to the second point, that, no doubt, will be kept in mind.

Mr. E. Smith: Seeing that the question of production is at stake, can the Prime Minister give an assurance that, before anything is done that will affect the men's conditions, the appropriate organisations will be consulted?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps we had better discuss that when the Bill is before the House.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it intended to set up in the new Ministry a priority committee similar in character to that which operated at the Ministry of Munitions?

The Prime Minister: If my hon. Friend will be good enough to await the Bill, that will be the time to discuss all those matters.

Mr. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend consider consulting the considerable numbers in the House who served on that Committee, before the terms of the Bill are finally settled?

The Prime Minister: No doubt my right hon. Friend will consult them.

Mr. Mander: Would it not be a good thing to appoint some Government supporter who has always been consistently right, instead of one who has been consistently wrong, on foreign policy?

Mr. Edwards: Will the new Ministry have powers to accumulate essential materials abroad, and thereby prevent them from being sold to aggressor countries?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the Bill.

Sir A. Gridley: asked the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the


approved and increased contingent commitments to other countries, the expansion and accelerated production of equipment thereby needed in this country, and the necessity for the careful allocation of manpower for military service and industrial production, respectively, he will request the Industrial Panel to make a second report immediately, with recommendations as to the wider use or expansion of industrial plants for the manufacture of munitions and as to the necessity for establishing some authority to settle the priority of the arms manufacture for the three fighting Serviecs and the Civil Defence Department?

The Prime Minister: I think that most of the objects which my hon. Friend has in mind will be secured by the decision of the Government to set up a Ministry of Supply to deal particularly with the problems arising out of the expansion of the land forces.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROCESSIONS, EAST LONDON.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary why two converging marches of the British Union of Fascists were allowed to take place through the banned area of East London on Sunday, 16th April; and whether this means that this area is now open for similar marches on the part of other organisations?

Sir S. Hoare: I have obtained a report from the Commissioner of Police. The question of proceedings in respect of this incident is under consideration, and I am, therefore, not in a position to make any statement. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. Attlee: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great indignation caused in East London, owing to this provocative march taking place and the fact that it appears that the march was conducted under the supervision of the Metropolitan Police, whereas, in fact, they should have broken it up?

Sir S. Hoare: I would prefer not to accept those statements until the investigation is completed. I said that the Commissioner is looking into the question, in order to see whether proceedings could not be taken.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that there are very strong feelings in that

area that consideration is shown to these Fascist gangs that would never be shown to the ordinary demonstrations of the working classes?

Sir S. Hoare: If that feeling does exist, it is completely without foundation. There is complete impartiality on the part of the police.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Burke: asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for Parliamentary time to discuss the Motion asking for old age pensions to be increased to £1 which now stands on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker)?

[That this House requests the Government to increase the weekly amount paid to old age pensioners to £1 a week and to make provision for this when the next Budget is introduced.]

The Prime Minister: I regret that I can hold out no hope of special facilities being given for the discussion of this Motion.

Mr. Burke: Is the Prime. Minister not aware that if this Motion were discussed he would find a body of opinion in favour of it in this House and throughout the country which would, perhaps, induce him to change his mind and do the gracious thing now, instead of being driven to do it by public opinion, as happened in the case of his policy of appeasement?

The Prime Minister: The question of doing any gracious thing is a question of finding the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. Benson: asked the Home Secretary (1) the number of whippings carried out in His Majesty's prisons for offences against prison discipline in 1938, and the nature of the instrument used;
(2) the number of sentences of corporal punishment imposed by the courts upon persons over 18 years of age during 1938; the number of such sentences carried out; the nature of the instrument used; and the offences for which the sentences were imposed?

Sir S. Hoares: As the answers include a number of figures, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

There were five cases of corporal punishment inflicted in His Majesty's prisons for offences against prison discipline in 1938—with the birch in three cases, and with the cat o' nine tails in two cases. During 1938, the number of sentences of corporal punishment passed by the courts on persons over the age of 18 was 15, of which 14 were carried out, the remaining sentence having been remitted. The birch was used in eight cases, and the cat o' nine tails in six cases. The offences were robbery with violence in 12 cases and armed robbery in three cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — MASKED POLICE WITNESS BOOTLE.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the action of a police wit ness at Bootle who wore a mask while giving evidence in a betting case, and to the statement afterwards made by the chief constable that in this matter Bootle was merely following other towns; and whether he will issue instructions to all police forces to discontinue this practice?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not aware that any such practice is general in the police forces of this country, and I do not think that any circular on this subject is necessary. As regards the particular incident at Bootle, I have obtained a report from the chief constable, who informs me that this special procedure was allowed because if the witnesses had been identified by certain persons present among the audience in the court they might have been in danger of personal violence. I realise the objections if this practice were commonly adopted, and I am in further consultation with the chief constable on the subject.

Mr. Silverman: Was any evidence tendered to the court that these witnesses might be subject to personal violence?

Sir S. Hoare: I could not say without
notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPLIFTING (CHILDREN).

58. Mr. Gardner: asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the growing number of minor shoplifting charges coming before children's courts, he will consider introducing legislation making it

illegal for the owners of retail stores working on an open access to goods system to admit children to their sales departments unless accompanied by adults?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not think legislation of the kind suggested in the question would be practicable, but the special temptation offered to children by certain retail stores is recognised, and discussions have taken place with representatives of some of the firms concerned as to methods of making it less easy for children to help themselves to articles spread before them in such places.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN POLICE.

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary the present strength of the women police in the Metropolitan Police district; the total strength of this establishment which he has sanctioned; and whether there are any women police officers permanently attached to the Criminal Investigation Department?

Sir S. Hoare: The present strength is one superintendent and 106 other ranks and the sanctioned establishment is 142. The number permanently attached to the Criminal Investigation Department is six.

Mr. Day: Are we to understand from that reply that the establishment is not complete?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, and I would be very glad of the help of any hon. Member to make the establishment complete.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-GERMAN FELLOWSHIP.

Mr. V. Adams: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the existence of a body calling itself the Anglo-German Fellowship; and whether he is satisfied that its activities do not result in injury to our national interests?

Sir S. Hoare: This organisation is, I understand, run by British subjects for the purpose of promoting better understanding between British subjects and Germans, and there will, I am sure, be general agreement that the promotion of better relations between the peoples of the two countries is not contrary to but advantageous to the national interests of both.

Mr. Adams: In present circumstances, how can this body fail to serve as a channel for Nazi propaganda?

Oral Answers to Questions — MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS INDUSTRY (REFUGEES).

Mr. Higgs: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that foreign refugees are being employed in the musical instruments industry at low rates of wages; and will he take steps to prevent this being done?

Sir S. Hoare: I have no such information, but I shall be glad to look into the matter if my hon. Friend will furnish me with particulars?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister the Business for next week, and how far he proposes to go to-night?

The Prime Minister: The Business next week will be:
Monday—Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill.
Tuesday—The Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.
Wednesday and Thursday—General Debate on the Budget Resolutions.
Friday—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
On any day, if there is time, other Orders will be taken
.
With regard to to-night, we propose to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule in order to obtain the first four Orders on the Paper. I hope this business can be obtained without asking the House to sit late.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask whether the Civil Defence Code will be available for hon. Members before the Debate on Monday?

Sir J. Anderson: It has already been sent in draft to various bodies with whom I propose to consult. I do not regard the document as in any way confidential, and I shall be glad to send a copy to any hon. Member who wants to see it.

Mr. Attlee: I think it should be made available for all hon. Members. We cannot enter upon the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill unless we have this information in our hands?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the point of the right hon. Gentleman, and I will see if it can be met.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask whether it is proposed to take the Amendments coming from another place in connection with the Prevention of Fraud (Investments) Bill?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, to-night.

Sir Irving Albery: Is it proposed to give one day only to the Committee stage of the Civil Defence Bill?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Attlee: May I take it that the Prime Minister will make a statement to the House on the international situation at the earliest possible time he is in a position to do so effectively?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I shall be glad to do that.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."— [The. Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 123.

Division No. 77.]
AYES.
[4.1 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Boyce, H. Leslie
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Brass, Sir W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Sc'h Univ's)
Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Channon, H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)


Apsley, Lord
Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)


Astor, Viscounts (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bull, B. B.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Bullock, Capt. M.
Colville, Rt. Hon. John


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Burton, Col. H. W.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Butcher, H. W.
Cox, H. B. Trevor


Bernays, R. H.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Craven-Ellis, W.


Blair, Sir R.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Critchley, A.


Bossom, A. C.
Cary, R. A.
Croft, Brig.-Gen, Sir H. Page


Boulton, W. W.
Castlereagh, Viscount
Crooke, Sir J. Smedley




Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Raid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Cross, R. H.
Hunloke, H. P.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Crossley, A. C.
Hunter, T.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Culverwell, C. T.
James, Wing-Commander A. W H.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Davidson, Viscountess
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Russell, Sir Alexander


De la Bère, R.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Russell, S, H. M. (Darwen)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Salmon, Sir I.


Denville, Alfred
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Dodd, J. S.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Donner, P. W.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Sandys, E. D.


Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
Levy, T.
Scott, Lord William


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Lewis, O.
Shaw, Captain W T. (Forfar)


Duggan, H. J.
Liddall, W. S.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Lindsay, K. M.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A


Dunglass, Lard
Lipson, D, L.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Eckersley, P. T.
Lloyd, G. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Loftus, P. C.
Smithers, Sir W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Snadden, W. McN.


Ellis, Sir G.
Maedonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Emery, J. F.
MeKie, J. H.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maitland, Sir Adam
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Storey, S.


Everard, Sir William Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Fildes, Sir H.
Markham, S. F.
Strickland, Captain W. F.


Findlay, Sir E.
Marsden, Commander A.
Stuart, Lord C. Crishton- (N'thw'k)


Flaming, E. L.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Medlicott, F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Furness, S. N.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Tate, Mavis C.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Gledhill, G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Miteheson, Sir G. G.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Touche, G. C.


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Gretton-Doyle, Sir N.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Turton, R. H.


Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Grimston, R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Hambro, A. V.
Patrick, C. M.
Warrender, Sir V.


Hannah, I. C.
Peake, O.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Harbord, A.
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Wells, Sir Sydney


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Petherick, M.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Hepworth, J.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Porritt, R. W.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Herbert, Lt.-Col. J. A. (Monmouth)
Procter, Major H. A.
Wragg, H.


Higgs, W. F.
Radford, E. A.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
York, C.


Holdsworth, H.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Hopkinson, A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)



Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Rawson, Sir Cooper



Horsbrugh, Florence
Rayner, Major R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hewitt, Dr. A. B.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Captain Dugdale and Captain


Hulbert, Squadron-Leader N. J.
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Waterhouse.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Chater, D.
Gardner, B. W.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Cluse, W. S.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Adamton, W. M.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Gibson R. (Greenoek)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Casks, F. S.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)


Ammon, C. G.
Collindridge, F.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.


Anderson, F. (Whitehavan)
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, D. R.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Dagger, G.
Griffiths, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)


Banfield, J. W.
Dalton, H.
Griffiths G. A. (Hemsworth)


Barnes, A. J.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)


Batty, J.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)


Ballenger F. J.
Day, H.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Dobbie, W.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)


Benson, G.
Ede, J. C.
Hardie, Agnes


Bevan, A.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Harris, Sir P. A.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Edwards, Sir C. (Bodwellty)
Hayday, A.


Burke, W. A.
Frankel, D.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Cape, T.
Gallacher, W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)




Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Hicks, E. G.
Naylor, T. E.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Jagger, J.
Owen, Major G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Paling, W.
Thorne, W.


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parker, J.
Thurtle, E.


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Parkinson, J. A.
Tinker, J. J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Pearson, A.
Tomlinson, G.


Kirby, B. V.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Viant, S. P.


Kirkwood, D.
Poole, C. C.
Walkden, A. G.


Lathan, G.
Price, M. P.
Walker, J.


Lawson, J. J.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Watson, W. McL.


Leach, W.
Ritson, J.
Westwood, J.


Lunn, W.
Rothschild, J. A. de
White, H. Graham


Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Sealy, Sir H. M.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


McEntee, V. La T.
Sexton, T. M.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


McGhee, H. G.
Shinwell, E.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Mander, G. le M.
Silverman, S. S.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Marshall, F.
Simpson, F. B.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Mathers, G.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Maxton, J.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Messer, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)



Milner, Major J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees-K'ly)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Morgan, J. (York, W.R., Doncaster)
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charleton


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Stephen, C.

BILL PRESENTED.

POULTRY INDUSTRY BILL,

"to secure improvement in the health and quality of live poultry, and in the marketing of poultry and eggs; for making better provision for securing the marking of preserved eggs; and the enforcement of the Merchandise Marks Acts, 1887 to 1938, as respects imported eggs; for regulating the importation of poultry and eggs; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid," presented by Colonel Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith; supported by Mr. Colville, Mr. Ramsbotham, Captain Wallace, and Mr. Wedderburn; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee A.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 111]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 103.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee A: Mr. Burke, Colonel Clarke, Mr. Ede, Sir Francis Fremantle, Mr. Joseph Henderson, Mr.

Creech Jones, Mr. Lathan, Captain Strickland, and Mr. Turton; and had appointed in substitution: Major Braithwaite, Mr. Cluse, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Hayday, Mr. Thomas Henderson, Mr. Higgs, Dr. Howitt, and Mr. Simmonds.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Twenty Members to Standing Committee A (in respect of the Unemployment Insurance Bill): Mr. Batey, Mr. Broad, Mr. Ernest Brown, Mr. Collindridge, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Foot, Sir Arnold, Gridley, Mr. Guy, Miss Horsbrugh, Mr. Lawson, Mr. Lennox-Boyd, Mr. Maclean, Mr. Macquisten, Sir Adam Maitland, Dr. Peters, Sir Eugene Ramsden, Mr. Selley, the Solicitor-General, Captain Wallace, and Mr. Young.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee B; Major Braithwaite and Mr. Eckersley; and had appointed in substitution: Colonel Clarke and Sir Stanley Reed.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Fifteen Members to Standing Committee B (in respect of the Marriage Bill): Viscountess Astor, Mr. Barr, Mr. Bernays, Sir Edmund Brocklebank, Mr. Butcher, Mr. Erskine Hill, Miss Lloyd George, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Mr. Joseph Henderson, Mr. Alan Herbert, Mr. Leonard, Mr. McCorquodale, Mr. Mathers, Major Neven-Spence and the Solicitor-General for Scotland.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee D: Commander Bower, Mr. Davidson, Major Oscar Guest, Mr. Higgs, and Mr. Mander; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Banfield, Mr. De la Bère, Lieut.-Colonel Heneage, Mr. Wilfrid Roberts, and Mr. Turton.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D (added in respect of the Wheat (Amendment) Bill): Mr. Drewe; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hunloke.

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Colonel Gretton further reported from the Committee; That they had added the following Ten Members to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills (in respect of the Local Government Amendment (Scotland) Bill and the Marriage (Scotland) Bill) [Lords]: Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte, Mr. Hall-Caine, Major Colfox, Mr. Errington, Sir Gifford Fox, Mr. Kimball, Sir Mervyn Manningham-Buller, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Ross Taylor, and Lord Colum Crichton-Stuart.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — CAMPS BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Power to make payments for promoting camps.)

The Chairman: The first Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), is out of place here, as I think he knows; and the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson), must come as a new Clause.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I beg to move, in page 1, line 22, after "conditions," to insert:
subject to a maximum of three per cent. interest in respect of any loan.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the capital charge falling on the company with respect to the renting of these camps shall be kept as low as possible. I am sure it is the genuine desire of Members in all parts of the Committee that not only should these camps be economically managed but that the charge to be made to the school children or local authorities or persons using the camps shall be as low as possible. It seems important, therefore, that the interest payable on the capital invested in the camps shall be as low as possible, and the purpose of the Amendment is to attempt to limit the interest charge so that the limitation may be expressed in a small charge on the public. I am sure it is the general experience of all who have run camps of this kind that capital costs form an important element in the charge. Therefore we suggest a limitation of the amount of interest payable in respect of the loans that are raised.

4.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that the interest rates should be as low as possible, and the intention is that the rate of interest should be 4 per cent. This is a little more than the Public Works Loans Board rate of 3⅞ per cent. But that is, of course, a moveable figure and may increase. What we want, in regard to

these figures, is to have a fixed rate of interest, and, as the hon. Gentleman knows, 4 per cent. is the rate charged by the Special Areas Commissioners to trading companies. I am sure the hon. Member will agree that no local authority could borrow at a rate as low as the 3 per cent. mentioned in the Amendment. If the liabilities for interest prove to be too high, the difficulty can be met in the agreements with the companies. This Amendment, by fixing a maximum rate of interest below what are the current rates for borrowing, really seeks to increase the subsidy or grant to a recognised company. In our judgment, this is not a good way of doing that. In our view if an increase were necessary—we hope it will not be—it would be better to provide for this directly in the agreement, by increasing the proportion of the advance to be treated as a grant. There is, of course, the possibility that the grant may not be sufficient, but that is a matter which can be seen only in the light of experience. Having heard this explanation, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation. Of course, the purpose of our Amendment is to reduce the burden which will fall on the statutory companies in the carrying out of their duties. The financial burden which they have to carry in respect of debt will inevitably affect the prices which they can charge to those who use the camps. Our purpose is to bring about the maximum use of the camps. If the Government will subsidise the camps further in other ways, of course we shall be ready to leave the 4 per cent. in the Bill, but I want to urge upon the Government the desirability of there being a further subsidy beyond that which is at present provided, namely, £500,000. I think the burden which will fall on the companies will be a very heavy one and will necessitate their charging their clients a higher price than should be charged, and will thus correspondingly reduce the use that will be made of the camps for the highly desirable social purposes which everybody has in view in supporting the Bill.

Mr. Creech Jones: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I beg to move, in page 2, line 5, at the end, to insert:
(4) Any agreement entered into by the appropriate Minister regarding the operations of a recognised company shall be presented to Parliament.
I do not need to make any elaborate explanation of this Amendment, since it is self-explanatory. We regard it as highly desirable that Parliament should be able to follow very closely this important social development, and that when the Departmental Votes come forward each year we should be able to discuss the work that is being done—with public money and in pursuance of an Act of Parliament —in the light of a full knowledge of the facts. I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment and that any agreements they make with the companies will be presented to Parliament.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's remark that the House, having voted a substantial sum of money, naturally will want to know what is being done with it and be able to review the expenditure from time to time. I appreciate also that it will want to know what are the relations between the Government and the companies and how the whole scheme is progressing. In our view, however, this information would be better given in an annual report by the company on their activities. Later on, there is on the Order Paper a new Clause in the name of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) providing for such an annual report, which would be laid before Parliament. When that new Clause is reached, my right hon. Friend will ask the House to accept it. If that is done, I hope the hon. Member will be satisfied, and will not consider it necessary to press this Amendment.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am rather sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has not been able to accept the Amendment. I do not think the concession he has offered with regard to the new Clause quite covers the point made in the Amendment. Clearly, the House will want to know what is the agreement between the Government and the company which will be carrying out the objects of the Bill. I do not imagine that an annual report would deal with details of that sort. Indeed, if the agreements were laid before the House, it

might be one way of checking the annual report, and of seeing how far the agreement was being carried out. I hope the Government will not be adamant on this point, but will be prepared to give the House an opportunity of seeing the agreements. The House is becoming less and less important in the minds of Ministers. I have in my bag in the Lobby a document that was sent to county aldermen which the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Privy Seal, earlier this afternoon, thought was of no concern to the House of Commons; it was not controversial, and the House could take it on his word. May I say that we have not so high an opinion of Ministers as they have of themselves? We desire to see the agreements that are entered into in regard to these matters, and I hope the Government will agree to this.

4.22 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I understood my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to say that in principle he accepts this Amendment, and that the point will be covered in a new Clause later on.

Mr. Ede: No.

Sir R. Glyn: If my hon. Friend agrees in principle, I assume that the Minister of Health will see that the annual report will contain everything that this Amendment would give. Otherwise, I should support the Amendment, because I think it is of the utmost importance that a report should be made to Parliament giving full details of what transactions have taken place. I would not like the Amendment to be pressed, because I am certain that the Minister recognises the importance of keeping the House in touch with the operations of the companies. I should like to have an assurance on this point.

4.23 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health will remember that, in the Second Reading Debate, he stressed the experimental character of the Bill and the fact that it was a new departure and that there might be an expansion in future. In view of these facts, I think there is a good case for the presentation of any agreements that are made, irrespective of the annual report. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that, in his capacity as a county alderman, he received a document, and that he thought Ministers did not think much of Members


of Parliament. Apparently, they think more of county aldermen.

Mr. Ede: Quite right.

Dr. Guest: It would be an advantage if these agreements were laid before the House. The Bill is an experimental one, and it would be a definite advantage if the House had an opportunity from time to time of reviewing the proposals that are made and the agreements that are entered into, as they are entered into.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I wish to support the Amendment. I fail to see any relationship between the Amendment and the proposal that there should be an annual report of any particular company.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elliot): It is not merely an annual report of the company, but an annual report to the House.

Mr. Adams: It is an annual report of the company to the House. What relation has that to the agreement? There might be something in an agreement to which we took the strongest exception, but which we should not be able to rectify on the annual report. What we suggest is that we should see what are the agreements in connection with which public money is to be expended. In some cases it might, in our judgment, be spent too rapidly, and in other cases too slowly, or under conditions that we would like to vary. The suggestion which the Minister has made has no relationship with the request contained in the Amendment.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Graham White: I think the point of the Amendment is one of importance, but I should like to ask whether it would be possible for any point of real substance to be included in any agreement that is made without that point also being included in the annual report. The answer to that question might make some difference to my view on the matter. I can realise the difficulty which might arise if an agreement was made in February of one year and was not reported to the House until February of the following year; in such a case, the matter might have been settled before it could be dealt with on the annual report.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I am anxious to meet the Committee on this matter. Hon. Members want to be reassured on two points.

First of all, they will get the ipsissima verba of the agreement in the annual report. I will give an undertaking to that extent. Hon. Members are a little uneasy lest a delay should take place and the annual report come out when arrangements have been running for a long time. I am anxious to meet that point. I do not think it is reasonable to insert a statutory demand that every agreement, as soon as it is entered into, should be the subject of a White Paper. There is indeed the danger that the volume of Papers which we have in the House might snow under the information which we desired to convey. If the Amendment were withdrawn, I should be willing to give an undertaking that, by the end of this year, I would circulate all the agreements so far entered into, and that they would be included as annexes to the annual report. I think that is a fair offer to the Committee, and one which meets the suggestions which hon. Members have made.

Mr. Ede: May I point out that the annual report referred to in the new Clause on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) is a report of the company and not a report of the Minister of Health, and that the Minister is placed under an obligation, by that Clause, to put the company's report before the House? It is not a report of the Minister. If he would include these agreements in his annual report as Minister of Health, I think that would go some way to meeting our request.

Mr. Elliot: Surely, it would not be desirable to print all these agreements in the annual report of the Minister. If I give an undertaking that I will give an interim report of all the agreements that have been entered into, say, by the end of this year, I think that is a reasonable offer. I will give a further assurance that I will get in touch with the companies, and I am sure they will agree to include the agreements in the annual report.

4.29 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Before the right hon. Gentleman spoke, I was going to ask him what was the reason for not giving us the agreements when they are made, because, as he has just said, it is obvious-that they must be reprinted as annexes to the annual report. Therefore, up to that point he has met us, but as has been


pointed out, that might mean a delay of a year, by which time many of the points in the agreement might have lost their actuality and urgency, and things might have settled down to such an extent that no changes could be made, although changes were desirable. To meet that, he said that he would make an offer to print all the agreements made up to the end of this year and then give them to us. We are hoping for a very rapid development and that there may be a good many such agreements, and we should very much like to see them at the earliest date.
The Bill is modest in scale, and it is very important. It is concerned with three major special developments—country school education for our children, the holidays of our adult population, and the safety of our people in time of war. On a matter of that fundamental social importance, it is desirable that Parliament and the public should be carried along with the Government. I wonder whether the Minister could amend his offer by saying that once a quarter he will lay the agreements made before the House, if he thinks it is too complicated a matter to lay each agreement as it is made. I should have thought it would have been simpler to lay each agreement as it is made, but if that is too difficult or complicated, or if, as he suggested, we should be snowed under by the volume of paper —I hope there may be so many agreements—I suggest that he might let us have them once a quarter.

4.32 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I am anxious to meet the Committee, but I think statutory provision is inappropriate. I will give a gentleman's agreement to the hon. Member that I will consult the leaders of the Opposition party as and when the first agreement is come to, and I think we shall have no difficulty in deciding at that point that a print should be made of such agreements for the benefit of the House. I think that a statutory obligation is altogether too rigid, but I have no desire to withhold these things from the House. I think this little conference that I have suggested should be able to meet the point.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: Are we to understand that that promise applies not only so far as agreements with companies which may

be set up in England are concerned, but equally to agreements that may be come to with the company which I understand is to be selected for this purpose and which is now carrying through the work of building houses by alternative methods in the Special Areas in Scotland?

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Colville): I will give an undertaking that we shall work in exactly the same way in Scotland as the Minister of Health in England in this connection.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health certain that he will be in a position, as Minister of Health, to carry out his gentleman's agreement? Will he be Minister at the end of the year?

Mr. Elliot: That is one excellent reason for shortening the term.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I take it that there will be two agreements, one with the English company and the other with the Scottish company. Am I to understand that we are talking about the agreements, as between the companies and the Government, or are we talking about the agreements which the companies enter into with certain bodies to run the camps?

Mr. Elliot: I was meeting the hon. Members on their own Amendment.

Mr. Creech Jones: I take it that there are only two agreements?

Mr. Elliot: I think that probably there will be more.

Mr. Noel-Baker: In view of the offer made by the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: This is by far the most important Clause in the Bill. It establishes the statutory companies and lays down the basis of the finance. I want to call attention to certain matters which were raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, and to ask whether the Minister can give us any further explanation with regard to them, as I hope he will be able to do. The first point is that, in our


view, this plan is far too modest in scale. We see every day that we are coming nearer and nearer to the dangers of air warfare. If the ambitions of the Government under this Bill are realised, we shall have, presumably within the compass of the present year, camp accommodation in war conditions for 35,000 people, as against the 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 who must be evacuated and as against, as I think, the 8,000,000 or 10,000,000 for whom the Government ought to make provision. It is, therefore, a very modest Bill, and it is modest, too, in relation to the other social purposes of which I have already spoken to-day. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he is making such progress with the development of this first scheme that in some consultation with the board of management of the company he will be able to make very rapid further progress towards other schemes which will shortly be coming along in another Bill.
The Clause deals with finance, and I have already said, on our Amendment with regard to the rate of interest, that we should like to subsidise these companies more heavily than they are being subsidised, for the reason that we want to reduce the basic rate that the companies must charge to local education authorities. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland told us on the Second Reading that under the arrangements here set forth the companies will have to pay an interest and sinking fund charge of 2s. 3d. per head per week. That seems to us much too onerous, and if they cannot reduce the rate of interest, I hope the Government will tell us that they plan to reduce in some way the burden of the £700,000 which they are laying on these companies to be repaid by way of interest and sinking fund. Connected with that point, and in particular with the charge of 2S. 3d. per head per week for interest and sinking fund charges, is the rate of grant which the Board of Education is going to give to local authorities. In the Second Reading Debate, if I understood him aright, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland told us that in Scotland the Government intended to continue the practice that now exists with regard to certain camps there and to make a 50 per cent. grant, but, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)

in that Debate, if these camps are used for elementary school education purposes, the grant in England will be, not 50 percent., but 20 percent. I do not know whether the Government have been able to take that matter into consideration, but I hope they have and that they will be able to tell us that they will be more generous in this regard than they led us to believe on the Second Reading.
The third point that I want to raise is that of the expansibility of the camps. I feel with great force that if these camps are to have any war-time purpose at all, it is little short of absurd to provide only for a two-fold expansion. I will not set out the arguments again, because that would involve going over the evacuation figures, which the Minister and I have discussed so often, but if the Government are going to the great trouble of organising these camps partly for war-time purposes, they ought to allow for a much larger expansion than merely two-fold, and I do not think it would be very difficult—indeed, I know it would not be difficult at all—and I do not think it would be very expensive to increase the expansion up to four-fold, five-fold, or even, as I have argued before, up to 10-fold. Certainly it would increase the capital charge, and undoubtedly you would have to put in provisions for further drainage, a larger water supply, rooms for stores and spare parts of the buildings you intended to put up, perhaps some larger central organisation administrative buildings, perhaps more land, and so on. But I do not think the basic capital charge for all that would be beyond what the Government ought to be able to support, in view of the urgent international crisis through which we are living. I hope again that the Minister will be able to tell us that the Government are revising their views on that matter and that the expansibility is to be more than two-fold.
I now come to the composition of the boards of managers of the statutory companies. I urged on the Second Reading that the Government should add to the boards of managers someone who might be a representative chosen by them in consultation with such bodies as the National Trust, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Council for the Preservation of Rural Scotland, and so on, whose special job on the board of managers would be to look after what


is often called the amenities aspect of this matter After all, 50 camps is a small-scale start, and we hope that it will be increased. If we are going to set up camps by the hundred in this country, we may, as I then argued, do very much to diminish the already greatly reduced tracts of unspoiled English countryside, and I think it will be to the interest of everybody, and above all of those who will use the camps, that these camps should not spoil the amenities of the countryside. I know that the Government will tell us that one of their directors, one of the members of the board of managers, has great experience in this regard and is a man who will pay attention to it, that he is a qualified architect and planner, and so on. That may be so, but with regard to the architecture and what may be called the technical planning, he will have a very full job, and I believe it would create confidence in the minds of those who are interested, that it would be of direct advantage from every point of view, and that it really would give us a much better guarantee than we have ever had before if the Government would accept the proposal and add someone to the board of managers who might be representative of, or chosen in agreement with, the National Trust and the other bodies that I have mentioned.
The last point that I want to raise on the Clause is this: These companies are to organise camps for evacuation purposes in time of war. They will, therefore, have devoted their attention to that aspect of the matter in time of peace, and they will be better qualified than anybody else in the country to organise camps for evacuees in war conditions. There is, as everybody knows, a large number of commercial camps in existence and now being developed and continually increased all round the country, and particularly on many parts of the coast, and I want to ask the Government whether they will consider giving, in the agreements which they are going to make, perhaps in the Defence of the Realm Act which they are now drafting for wartime purposes, power to these statutory companies to take over commercial camps and to run them in conjunction with their other camps for the reception of people evacuated from vulnerable areas. We have not put down an Amendment to that effect, because it did not seem to us to be suitable for this Bill, but I hope the

Government will give us an assurance that they will take it into account and that they will, if possible, make arrangements that these companies shall have that power in time of war.

4.43 p.m.

Sir William Davison: I would like to support what has been urged, that the Government should give some assurance that a representative of the National Trust or of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England should be put on this board. I think it is essential that in providing these 40 or 50 camps nothing should be done to interfere with the amenities of the countryside, which are so essential to everyone, and not least to the people who will be occupying the camps. This is the more necessary in view of the terms of Clause 3 of the Bill, which, once the Minister's approval has been given to a site, to the building of a camp, or anything to do with it, exempts it from the control of the local authority. We know how busy Ministers are in these days, and how impossible it is for them to go thoroughly into the question whether a particular camp is interfering with the amenities of a district, whereas, if there is a representative of either of the two societies I have mentioned, whose special duty it will be to see that the camps do not interfere with the amenities of the district in which they are situated, he will be a very valuable help to the Minister in making up his mind as to any local protest.
With regard to the inability of the Minister to deal with matters of that kind, I would point out that recently in my own constituency, in a part which was town planned for residences only, the Post Office desired to put up a telephone exchange, and the Minister said, after considerable discussion with the local authority, that he could not interfere with this desire for a public improvement. I give that as an instance to show that a busy Minister, overwhelmed with the duties of his Department, cannot give the consideration required as to whether any particular camp does or does not interfere with the amenities of a district, or say whether by making certain changes the dangers anticipated by those primarily responsible for the amenities of the district could be met. I earnestly support the appeal to the Government that represen-


tatives of either the National Trust or the Society for the Protection of Rural England should be on the board.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I, too, should like to suggest that every possible consideration be given to the question of amenities and that they should be properly looked after by a Member of the board. It may be said that Mr. Percy Thomas is there for that purpose. Mr. Thomas is a well-known practising architect, but I am not aware that he is a planning expert. He is not a member of the Planning Institute. It would be very advisable that there should be some such arrangement as exists in connection with the Air Ministry, where Professor Abercrombie goes round to the sites that the Ministry are thinking of taking over, and advises the Ministry from the amenities' point of view whether or not it is suitable territory to take. I know that the Minister desires to work as closely as he can with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and others, but he would make the matter much more secure than it is at the moment if he could give an assurance that there will be on the board some person whose duty it will be to look after these matters and who is fully qualified by his professional experience to carry out that work.

4.47 p.m.

Dr. Guest: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) with regard to the provision of extra water supply, storage and cooking arrangements. I made some reference to this on Second Reading. Would it be inside the powers conferred by this Bill for the company to provide for the doubling, the trebling or the quadrupling of the accommodation required? It is obviously very desirable that that should happen. If you have a camp to take 100 people and you have the basic drainage, water supply and cooking arrangements that would deal with 1,000 people under war conditions, then you would be able to increase your accommodation, by tents, etc., when the emergency arose; but you must have the basic skeleton or foundation in the camp. I should like a specific assurance from the Minister that the power to do that exists in the Bill, if it should become desirable to do it. If not, it may be necessary to bring forward an Amendment. I heartily

agree with what the hon. Member for Derby said on the amenities question. It is quite easily possible so to arrange the camp that it becomes part of the landscape and is even an addition to the landscape, by the exercise of a little common sense; but it is possible on the other hand, absolutely to Spoil the beauty of a district, as I regret to say has been done in many parts of the country, and even in the immediate neighbourhood of Edinburgh, as the Minister for Health will know. I hope that that aspect of the matter will receive very careful attention as it is urgently important.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I should like briefly to support the appeal made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) and others on the amenities question. As a member of the executive committee of the National Trust and in other capacities I know and share the very great interest that is rightly taken by the amenities societies in the question raised by the hon. Member. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) drew attention to the fact that the Air Ministry which needs land perhaps as urgently as any Department finds it possible to consult Professor Abercrombie before choosing its sites. It would be far the most convenient course that an experienced country planner should be a member of the Board of Management. That would be regarded by the amenities societies as the simplest way of giving them the minimum protection required. I do not think that the member placed on the board would be a representative of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England or of the National Trust, though each of those bodies would be prepared, if consulted, to advise the Minister regarding those whom they would consider suitable. That there should be an experienced country planner on the Board of Management before the sites are chosen is in the view of all those who are concerned with these matters absolutely essential. If the Minister would give an undertaking in this matter, no consideration with which he is concerned would be in any way weakened and no harm of any kind would result, but on the other hand those, and there are many, who are concerned about the beauty of this country would be very much relieved. I support very strongly the appeal made by the hon. Member for Derby.

4.51 p m.

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: I should like to endorse the appeal made to the Minister from all quarters of the Committee in regards to the protection of amenities. As far as Wales is concerned—I speak particularly of the North Wales coast—I should have liked to see a representative of the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales on the board, especially having regard to the camps that may be located in the Principality. The question of camps is becoming rather a vexed question in the constituencies of many hon. Members, particularly those who have large coast-lines in their constituencies. The competition of commercial enterprises for the building of camps has become a very serious matter and in many directions is threatening the amenities of the countryside and, incidentally, very seriously jeopardising the property of those who have come to live in those localities. I would strongly appeal to my right hon. Friend that so far as the Government are concerned in regard to these camps every security should be given to the House and the country that no camp will be built that will not be in conformity with the geographical and natural amenities of the district. I do stress the point as far as Wales is concerned there should be a member of the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales on the board.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I support the point of view put by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) and I want to appeal particularly in regard to the town areas respecting the use of the camps by school children. On the Second Reading of the Bill and in the discussion on the Money Resolution, I made a strong appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education that he should use his influence with his Noble Friend the President of the Board of Education to see whether the percentage grant payable for the use of these camps by English elementary school children could be increased. The anomalies that will be created unless this is done are such that I do not think the Board or the Minister can contemplate. It would be most anomalous if you have the local education authorities in respect of some camps putting the secondary school children in one group, because they will get a 50 percent. grant for them, and

putting the elementary school children in another group because they will only get a 20 per cent. grant for them. They will be doing that with the knowledge that in the country from which the Minister of Health comes a 50 percent. grant will be paid for all children.
During the Committee stage of the Money Resolution the Parliamentary Sectary to the Ministry of Health tried to ride off with a story about the complication of the English grant formula. That does not arise, because this is additional expenditure, and, therefore, every penny that goes into this will be taken at 20 percent. or 50 percent. Unless the Board of Education are prepared to make some concession on this matter, those districts which most need the facilities that these camps ought to afford will find themselves denied the opportunities. I elaborated the point at greater length on the Committee stage of the Money Resolution and I do not desire to delay the Committee to-day. Therefore, I will not repeat the arguments that I then used; but I do sincerely hope that the Board of Education will realise that if they want to help the children in the distressed areas they must do something towards increasing the percentage grant that will be available.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I support the appeals from all quarters of the Committee for extra precautions to preserve amenities. I rise more particularly to ask a question. There is an Amendment to Clause 1 which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) and myself and other hon. Members, but I notice it has not been called. I should like to know whether there will be an opportunity later on to discuss the point raised in the Amendment, or can it be raised by a new Clause or in some other way?

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I want to support the plea. of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker)that the board of management of the company should include a country planner whose exclusive duty it would be to keep a watch on the siting of the camps and the fitting of them into the landscape. I understand that Mr. Thomas has been held out by the Minister of Health as a suitable person for that duty. I have nothing whatever to say against Mr.


Thomas, who was recently the President of the Royal Institute of British Architects, but I suggest that his hands will be full with the architectural side of the board of management's duties. He will be fully occupied in designing camps. It is essential that there should be a member of the board who is charged with the duty of planning the sites. It has been suggested that the board will consult the officials of the Ministry, but I do not think that that is sufficient. I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the suggestion which so many hon. Members have supported.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Bossom: I wish to add my plea to those which have already been made to the Minister on the question of amenities. The Minister has indicated that members of his staff will probably co-operate in this matter. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to throw his mind back to a few years ago when members of the staff of the Department of which he was then Minister had certain responsibilities in relation to another place and when their actions were such that the House of Commons had to stop them. I hope the Minister will accept the representations which have come to him from all parts of the Committee on this point. We want someone on the board of management who is capable of observing the sites and looking after amenities from a town-planning and not only from an architectural point of view. The architect has a particular kind of work to do and the work of town-planning is entirely separate from it. There is a Town-planning Institute for that purpose, and it is not practical or proper that such work should be left entirely in the hands of the architect. I hope, therefore, that consideration will be given to the plea which has been made this afternoon.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. McEntee: There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for West Willesden (Mr. Viant) concerning the wages and conditions of people who will be affected by Clause 4, and I wish to ask for an assurance that the Fair Wages Clauses which is applied by the Government in all normal contracts, will be included in every contract made under Clause 1. I wish to ask, further, whether consideration has been given to the very important

question of the furnishing of these camps? Clause 1 leaves it rather an open question whether furnishing comes under the Bill at all or not. Sub-section (1) refers to promoting the construction, maintenance and management of the camps. I presume that one of those three terms must include the furnishing of the camps. In war time these camps will be used to house both adults and children. In peace time they are to be used for housing children on holiday and some of them are also to be used for adults on holiday. Furniture suitable for children might not be suitable for adults, and vice versa, and in view of the large amount of furniture which will be required, I think that consideration should be given to the actual furnishing of the camps by people who are qualified to give such consideration. As far as I know there is no one on the board with any special competence in that respect. I am not saying anything against the general qualifications of the members, but I suggest that there should be someone on it with special qualifications in regard to furnishing.
My last point is that where these camps have to be constructed of timber, Empire timber should, as far as possible, be used. I have been charged with thinking too much about the Empire but in this connection I think about Empire timber in the first place because it is Empire timber, and in the second place because I know that the conditions under which it is grown and worked are infinitely better than the conditions under which timber is grown and worked in most foreign countries. In addition, experience teaches me that timber grown in the Empire is much more suitable for this kind of construction work than any timber which we can get from any other part of the world. Therefore, both on patriotic and on practical grounds I hope that, as far as possible, Empire-grown timber will be used for this purpose.

5.6 p.m.

Sir William Jenkins: Although provision is being made in this Clause for both England and Wales, I see no reference to the number of camps which it is proposed to construct in Wales. We have a number of school camps there as a result of arrangements made between the social services and the local authorities, and these camps are very much appreciated, particularly in South Wales where so many of our children come from distressed


areas. These camps give the children opportunities of going away for some weeks at a time which is very useful. Unfortunately, last year one of the camps, that at Pembrey, was closed and nothing has been done to replace it. I should like to know whether it will be possible to make additional provision in this respect in Wales. These camps give a much needed opportunity for improving the general health of the children. I think the Board of Education must appreciate as much as we have appreciated locally, the efforts made and the assistance given in that respect. The closing of that camp deprived 300 or 400 children of this benefit and affected us considerable, and we are anxious to know what can be done to replace it. I hope that additional camps will be provided.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I should like to reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Sir W. Jenkins) with regard to the reopening of the camp at Pembrey. I also wish to support the statement of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). In his reply on the Money Resolution the Parliamentary Secretary said that the formula involved was a little complicated and that to relate the 20 percent. grant to the 50 percent. grant would be very difficult. We think, however, that the same financial conditions which apply to England and Wales should apply also to Scotland, and I am surprised that hon. Members should be prepared to stand for any differentiation. One may assume that a large number of these camps will be in the less vulnerable areas and thus they are likely to go west—I mean, geographically., It is singular that the further west one goes the more distress one finds.

Mr. Ede: What about the north-east?

Mr. Williams: I am sure the Committee will take note of the voice of South Shields in that connection, but I think it is admitted that from Lancashire right down to South Wales is a distressed area, although there are patches here and there in the Midlands, like Birmingham, which are comparatively well-to-do. The Minister should realise that it is in distressed areas that the camps will provide the greatest physical benefit to the children. In those areas the local authorities are already over-burdened and

Parliament continually imposes greater burdens upon them. On this occasion advantage should be taken of the opportunity to alleviate as far as possible the burden falling on the local authorities. By differentiating in this way between England and Wales on one hand and Scotland on the other, an additional financial burden is being placed upon areas which are least able to bear it. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give us an assurance that where secondary school children have to go to these camps, the 50 percent. and not the 20 percent. will be paid, regardless of any formula.

5.12 p.m.

Sir Robert Young: In reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), the Minister said there would not be more than two agreements, but I imagine that there will be 50 agreements. Two companies are to be formed and 50 camps are to be set up, and I take it that the two companies will be responsible for the 50 camps. If that is so, are we to understand that a report will be given in relation to each of these 50 camps? I presume that the Government do not propose to make one agreement with one company for the whole 50 camps without giving details of each of the various camps coming under the administration of that company.

Mr. Elliot: On that particular point, may I say that the earlier Amendment proposed that any agreement entered into by the appropriate Minister regarding the operations of a recognised company should be presented to Parliament. I should not think that there will be 50 agreements. I do not think there will be many more than two, but I think we can leave the matter to the discussions which are to take place between the Leaders of the Opposition parties and myself. The point which the hon. Member has just put indicates how difficult it would be to define in a Statute the information which should be communicated to the House. I am anxious to communicate as much as possible with the least possible trouble both to the company and to hon. Members.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: The reception which has been accorded to this Clause indicates that there is no objection to it, in principle. The Committee has welcomed it, but has shown concern about various


questions of administration, and I propose to direct myself to some of the questions which have been put to the Government upon it. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) repeated the point which he made on the Second Reading that the Bill was modest in scale. I can only reply that it is, in a sense, experimental. It may be that we shall be able to expand in the future, but for the moment we must keep to the figure that is in the Bill and any additions will require new legislation. We must see how these proposals work and proceed in the light of experience. With regard to the financial points which have been raised we are not in a position to alter the financial arrangements, and I think when the Committee examines them, they will agree that the terms in the Bill are not unsatisfactory. A question was put by the hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) as to whether a company could in certain circumstances expand a water supply. I can assure him that it is certainly in their power to do so if they consider the requirements to be necessary. The hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee) raised one or two points. The first has more relation to Clause 4 than to Clause 1. There is an Amendment down on the point, and when we come to that Clause my right hon. Friend will be able to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance of which he asks.

Mr. McEntee: Clause 4 deals with a different matter. I am asking for an assurance that all men employed will be subject to the ordinary Fair Wages Clause which is inserted in Government contracts.

Mr. Bernays: If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give the assurance now I will give it. He also made a point about furniture. The Board of Management are really fully acquainted with the point, but we will naturally bring it to their attention. Other questions were raised about the number of camps there would be in Wales. No number has yet been fixed and we are at present looking for the sites. With regard to the general question of camps in the Special Areas, they are dealt with under Special Areas legislation and there is a 100 percent. grant for them. With regard to the education point raised by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), it does not come within the province of my Department or within the

province of the Bill, but I am authorised to assure the hon. Gentleman that this matter is being given careful consideration by the Board of Education.

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. Gentleman say "careful and sympathetic consideration"?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Bernays: The most important point that has been raised in the discussion on the Clause has related to amenities, and a number of speeches were made in all parts of the Committee upon that matter. The Government were specifically asked whether they would include a representative of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England or kindred bodies upon the Board of Management. We are most anxious to do all that can be done to preserve amenities, but our difficulty is that the Government do not want to overweight this board. If they gave representations, for instance, to this council there would be demands from other bodies for similar representations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Before the Parliamentary Secretary proceeds to develop the point, he had better understand the point we made. We did not propose representation particularly of these bodies. We proposed that there should be either a representative chosen by these bodies to represent themselves as a series of organisations together, or somebody chosen for the special purpose by the Government in consultation with those bodies, but only one man. I do not think it can be said that a board which consists of six people instead of five is over-weighted.

Mr. Bernays: I did not say that the hon. Gentleman had asked for a representative of that body. I was only making the point that if my right hon. Friend agrees to put on one representative to represent one particular interest, there will be claims from others which will be just as strong, and there is a danger that the board will be over weighted.

Mr. Bossom: I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary does not understand the situation at all. This strikes right at the root of the question whether a camp is in the right place and properly arranged. All other questions will follow on. If the camp is in the wrong


place there will be a destruction of amenities and there will be an offence for ever. I, therefore, beg my hon. Friend to give consideration to the pleas that have come from all quarters of the Committee on this point.

Mr. Bernays: If my hon. Friend will let me proceed with my speech he will see that I understand the point that has been made. I am saying that other interests will want to be represented such as, for instance, youth hostels. After all, this board has to do a job of work quickly and expedition is the essence of its task.

Mr. H. Strauss: This is a point of great importance. Neither the National Trust nor the Council for the Preservation of Rural England has asked for any representation whatever. The claim put forward from all quarters of the Committee on behalf of all these bodies with similar interests is for an experienced town planner to be on the board, and unless the Government think there is no merit in the claim surely they are wrong to turn it down. On the question of expedition, surely it means less delay and not more if there is on the board a person with this qualification.

Mr. Bernays: If the hon. Gentleman will only allow me to proceed with my speech he will see that the Government are very much aware of the point that has been made and are doing their best to meet it. We fully appreciate the importance of considering amenities, and in our submission the real safeguard lies in proper administration. I think the House will be relieved to hear that on every site a town planner has been consulted already and sites have not been decided upon until it has had the agreement of a town planner. As has already been announced, one member of the board of the English company, Mr. Percy Thomas, is a distinguished architect and a past-president of the R.I.B.A. This in itself will secure that architectural and planning consideration are given full weight. In addition the Government understand that the company have already engaged as consulting architects a well-known firm with large experience in this type of work to prepare preliminary plans. They have also been in consultation with the R.I.B.A.

Mr. Bossom: May we have the name of the firm?

Mr. Bernays: I am not in a position to give it but I will make inquiries.

Mr. Ammon: Is not this discussion getting out of hand? Cannot the Minister get up and make the point plain, for evidently the Parliamentary Secretary does not understand the point before the House?

Mr. Bernays: It is rather difficult to proceed with so many interruptions. I understand the point, and I am trying to assure the Committee that I understand it. We have been asked whether we would take into consideration the importance of amenities, and I say that no site has been agreed upon except after consultation with a town planner and with the specific agreement of the town planner to the site. I would further point out that these plans in any case have to be submitted to my right hon. Friend. That ensures that they will be subject to a thorough examination by the qualified architects of the Ministry of Health. In practice, this means that the chief architect of the Department, who has on his staff a number of architects and others who are experienced in planning work, will make himself responsible for all these matters. The House can be assured that in the unlikely event of some planning considerations being overlooked by the company and their advisors, every proposal, whether as regards the site, design or lay-out, will be scrutinised in the Department from the planning point of view. I hope that that fact will reassure the Committee that we have this point of amenities very much in mind and are doing our best to see that camps are adequately planned.

5.27 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am bound to say that the Minister's answer has been extremely unsatisfactory. At more than one point in the speech I felt very much inclined to move that we report Progress and ask the Minister to make the statement himself. On almost every point the Parliamentary Secretary made he has been unsatisfactory. He said he agreed that this is a Bill on a modest scale. He did not tell us that the Government would in the near future bring in another Bill. They are evidently going to see this Bill through before they consider it. They may be in time for the next war but one, but they will certainly not be in time for the next. The hon. Gentleman said on


the financial basis that nothing has been changed, but everybody agrees that more subsidy is required. He did say on the authority of the Board of Education that the Board would consider the rate of grant sympathetically. On that I will only say that we shall watch them to see that the point is not forgotten. On the question of expansibility, which again, from the point of view of the war-time purpose of this Bill, is of supreme importance, the Minister said nothing except that the Board would be able to increase water supply if it so desired. Of course the Board will be able to do so. What we want to know is whether the Government will take into consideration the importance of making these camps expansible and beyond the limits which they now propose. Until they do that we do not consider that they are giving proper consideration to one of the important aspects of this Bill.
The hon. Gentleman came lastly to the question of amenities, but he did not understand the point very well. At any rate, he did not convince me that he understood it. Still less did he make me understand what are the objections of the Government to the proposal which we put forward. It is no good telling us that a town planner is to be consulted and that the plans will go up to the Department in the last resort. We all know that Government Departments have done more than anybody to debauch the amenities of the countryside. We want a guarantee that those who are giving their lives and the whole of their time to safeguard the beauty of England will be consulted, and that there will be someone with that background and outlook giving the whole of his time and attention in his work on this board to see that the beauty of England is preserved. For that purpose we need somebody who has long experience, who has the confidence of those who are interested in these matters, and who will be prepared to go to every camp site and examine things on the spot. I ask the Minister to rise and tell us that he will reconsider this point. I ask him to throw over the fatuous argument that adding one more member to this board will overweight it.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I think the Minister of Health has treated his Parliamentary Secretary very unfairly in allotting to him

a task which he himself ought to have undertaken. The Parliamentary Secretary has done his best within the scope of his authority, but clearly this is a matter which must be dealt with by someone who has, at any rate, the power of give and take and can speak with authority. The Government have approached this matter in a wholly different spirit from that displayed by the Minister in dealing with the earlier Amendment. Then, in response to one or two speeches, he said, "We want to work together, and if you say you want that, I will give you a gentleman's agreement that you shall have it." But on this Amendment, which is one of the greatest importance, on which responsible Members behind him have urged exactly the same point of view as has been put from this side, namely, that there should be someone associated with town planning on the board, he contents himself with putting up his Parliamentary Secretary to bring forward the best arguments available, and they were not in the least convincing.
The proposal is not, as has been represented, that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England or the National Trust shall have someone on the board. That would be unreasonable. The suggestion is that there should be somebody whom those bodies, unofficially consulted, would regard as acceptable to them and appropriate from their point of view, but appointed on the sole responsibility of the Government. The suggestion has been made that a whole host of other interests would want to be represented on the board. I think the only one which has been mentioned was the Youth Hostels movement, but I do not believe they would immediately come and say they must go on the board. Such a suggestion seems to be put forward merely in an enthusiastic attempt to find some argument for not doing what the Committee want to be done. The name of Mr. Thomas was mentioned. It is no good bringing forward his name. He is an admirable practising architect, but he is not a member of the Town Planning Institute and not an expert on this subject, and, therefore, does not satisfy the views of those who want this matter specially regarded. The point was not made that because the Air Ministry can have Professor Abercrombie why cannot this board have somebody advising them on this aspect?
The Parliamentary Secretary has given us to understand that some sites have already been inspected and some chosen. It will be interesting to know how many have been inspected and chosen in anticipation of the passing of this Bill and where they are. Then he told us that a certain eminent firm of architects had been appointed and he was asked to give the name. Naturally, at the moment he did not feel able to do so, but I hope the Minister will give us the name, because we are entitled to have it. I hope the House will go on pressing this matter in order to make the Government realise that if they want to get on with this job they must act in a reasonable way, as the Minister showed that he wanted to at the beginning of the discussion, and fall in with the wishes of the representatives of the people.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I feel some hesitation in rising to speak, because the Committee seemed to greet the remarks of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary as those of a Minister who had not appreciated the point at issue. I listened very carefully to his remarks, and all I can say is that if they showed that he had not appreciated the point at issue I doubt whether I have appreciated it either, and I should hate to expose my ignorance or to get at loggerheads with the Committee. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) said that we began the discussion in a friendly spirit and I hope to see that spirit preserved to the end. I am afraid that I shall not succeed in convincing the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) that this Bill is in all respects as he would desire it to be, because a good many of the points he raised had already been put forward by him on Second Reading. He demanded on this Clause 1 that we should make an announcement that we were going immediately to introduce further legislation. I think that on reflection he will see that that is asking a spokesman of the Government to go rather further than he could reasonably be expected to go. I can imagine no one who would more roundly condemn the Government if, on Clause 1 of this Bill, they announced that they were about to introduce further legislation on the same point.
He thanked us for intimating that we were considering one of the points which had been raised, the rate of grant, but

wanted to be further assured that the board could count on grant for the services of the camp beyond the actual needs of the particular number of school children or double that number of adults. He wanted to know that the board had powers to go beyond that. The point was certainly raised by his colleague the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest). All that we are discussing at the moment is whether this legislation does give the board the powers which Parliament would desire it to have.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Technically that is all that arises on Clause 1, but this seemed to me the most convenient opportunity to ask the Government their intentions regarding expansibility. On Second Reading the Government told us they only intended a twofold expansion, and I urged repeatedly that that would be inadequate, and I hope the Minister will be ale to tell us that the Government, after further consideration, have made some progress towards providing for a more than twofold expansion, and that while the powers exist they intend to urge that the companies should use them.

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. Member has been a little less than fair to us. He said a camp which would hold a certain number could not without difficulty accommodate more than double that number of adults under war conditions but the point of expansibility is being kept in mind up to a figure far beyond a twofold expansion. When the Parliamentary Secretary spoke of water he was merely giving water as an example of one of the services which could be expanded. Another point which is not specifically connected with the war activities of the country in the near future, but rather with its peace activities, which we hope will be far more enduring, was raised from many quarters in the Committee. I have the greatest sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary, who could never finish one sentence without one or two, or sometimes three, Members getting up simultaneously to ask—

Mr. George Griffiths: And you pulled him down.

Mr. Elliot: No, I held him down. So great was his anxiety to give information to the Committee that I thought he would be answering one question before he had


heard the second or third, but that was done with a reasonable desire to get on with his remarks, because he was undoubtedly delayed in his speech and that naturally tended to confusion. Neither he nor I had any idea that a great number of persons were to be added to the board on account of the interests of town planning, but the point was repeatedly urged that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England ought to have specific representation on the board. I am perfectly certain that the Parliamentary Secretary has got that point. We do understand that that was one of the points which was being put. Our point is simply that other interests would also ask to be represented on the board. The hon. Member for Derby will agree that the youth organisations have repeatedly pressed strongly for someone to be placed on the board who would give special attention to their interests.

Mr. Mander: They are customers.

Mr. Elliot: There are other bodies which have also put forward claims to be consulted, but speed is the essence of the matter, and I ask the Committee to realise that every person added to the board would tend to delay proceedings. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and others have said that if the Air Ministry could be advised by Professor Abercrombie why could not the Ministry of Health be advised by somebody who had, as the hon. Member for Derby said, long experience in the matter and possessed the confidence of those who are interested. I am prepared to concede that point. The Ministry of Health will be advised on this matter by somebody who has had long experience and who has the confidence of those who are concerned, by no less than a past president of the Institute of Town Planning, Mr. Pepler. There is a name which commands the confidence of those interested in the matter, because they selected him to be their president and he has had very long experience. I put it to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton that that meets that point. That leaves only one other point, which is: Should that representative be on the board or be at the ear of the Minister? I beg him to accept the view that he should be at the ear of the Minister, and that it is not necessary for him to be actually on the

board. I give two further assurances. There is nothing in the Clause proscribing any such person from being added to the board. If the Committee passes the Clause now we are not by any means shutting our minds to the matter, and after the assurance that we shall have Mr. Pepler's advice I do not think it is unreasonable to ask the Committee to let us have the Clause, so that we can start operations and then see the outcome.
The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton asked how many sites had been selected and approved. Between 60 and 70 sites have been inspected and some 14 have been approved, after consultation with the town planning organisations of the very areas where it is proposed to put the camps. Then I was asked where they were. They are in the home counties. As to Scotland, some 40 sites have been inspected there and nine are provisionally considered to be suitable. Several sites have been inspected in Wales, but so far none has been decided upon.

Mr. G. Griffiths: How many in Yorkshire?

Mr. Elliot: That shows the difficulty of making progress. The Committee are so interested in the project that there is a danger of their actually delaying affairs. We have already selected 14 sites, and as soon as the House gives us authority we can get on with the work, and I beg hon. Members not to delay us unduly by a too meticulous attention to detail in these matters. The Government were also asked for the name of the firm of architects to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. The architect is Mr. Tait, who is well known to my Scottish colleagues as having been concerned in the design and layout of the Empire Exhibition in Glasgow. He is a member of the firm of Burnet, Tait and Lorne, who were responsible for some of the Government buildings at Calton Hill.
I hope that I have met the various points that have been brought forward in the Committee, except the one that an additional town planner should be added to the board. I ask the Committee to trust the discretion of the Government in this matter and to take my assurance that my mind is not closed in regard to it. If I find that progress can be made in this way I shall be very glad to consider the suggestion later on. At the moment I


cannot take the responsibility of adding further names to the board or to give an assurance of adding further names while the matter is before the House, but I will consider any reasonable demand made by other bodies who are interested in the matter.

Sir Robert Tasker: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give me the name again of the firm concerned?

Mr. Elliot: The name, which is well known to my Scottish colleagues, is Messrs. Sir John Burnet, Tait and Lorne.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: Have any sites been considered on the North-East Coast?

Mr. Elliot: So far, sites have mostly been in the home counties within range of London. From the evacuation point of view that is where the greatest necessity arises, and it is an area not covered by the activities of the Special Area Commissioner, who has himself inspected several areas which are not covered elsewhere

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is it the Minister's intention to inspect or to have any sites in Northumberland?

Mr. Elliot: I cannot say that. Sites will certainly be inspected in all parts of the country, but I would not like to be taken as giving a pledge to the Committee that sites will be chosen in any particular part or in any particular county. If a suitable site is brought forward in any part of the country I can certainly undertake that it will be considered.

Mr. Denville: Is not everything carried on with a London complex? Already sites have been fixed for about 40 places in the home counties and not a solitary site fixed in the provinces.

Mr. Elliot: My hon. Friend is a little unfair there. Many camps have been set up in the provinces in conditions much more advantageous than those prevailing at the centre. In the Special Areas they have a 100 percent. grant. The reason why we are considering these camps in relation to London is that London has not

the advantages of some other parts of the country; indeed, it has a great disadvantage in that it is one of the chief areas from which evacuation would take place if we were in danger because of air warfare.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: It is very difficult to resist an appeal made in such terms by the Minister of Health but we are entirely unconvinced, not that we have not confidence in Mr. Pepler—he is very well known to me, not only because of his public record but because he happens to be a personal friend—but he might be retired under the age limit. We think that there is a very strong case made out by the youth organisations. I do not believe that the addition of several members to the board would lead to delay and that to say so is a complete fallacy from begining to end; but any such claim is on a totally different basis from this claim. They are sectional interests, but the preservation of the beauty of England is a national interest which concerns everybody. We hope that the Government are going to change their mind but, while we are in agreement with the main purpose of the Bill, we propose, as a protest on this matter, to vote against the Clause.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: If the Minister wants to get his camps speeded up he should put someone on the board with a thorough grasp of what is wanted and who will utilise his position on the board to that end. That is the idea of the Amendment, and if the Minister understood that point he would not keep insisting that he wanted to get ahead with the job. The Amendment is for the purpose of getting ahead with the job. He asks us to trust him, but I assure him that he will get no trust from anybody on this side of the House—neither he nor any other Member of the Government. The only time when we shall have any trust in the Minister or those associated with him is when they pack their bags and go.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 224; Noes, 110.

Division No. 78.]
AYES.
[5.53 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Apsley, Lord
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)


Albery, Sir Irving
Aske, Sir R. W.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead)


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Assheton, R.
Bernays, R. H.




Blair, Sir R.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boothby, H. J. G.
Harbord, A.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Boyce, H. Leslie
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Bracken, B.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brass, Sir W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bull, B. B.
Hepworth, J.
Rosbotham, Sir T.


Butcher, H. W.
Higgs W. F.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cary, R. A.
Holdsworth, H.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hopkinson, A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Salmon, Sir I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Samuel, M. R. A.


Channon, H.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hunloke, H. P.
Sandys, E. D.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hunter, T.
Schuster, Sir G. E.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Scott, Lord William


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Simmonds, O. E.


Critchley, A.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Smithers, Sir W.


Cross, R. H.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Snadden, W. McN.


Crossley, A. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald


Crewder, J. F. E.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Levy, T.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lewis, O.
Spens, W. P.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Lindsay, K. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Storey, S.


Danville, Alfred
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Donner, P. W.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
McKie, J. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Macnamara, Lieut.-Colonel J. R. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Macquisten, F. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Dunglass, Lord
Maitland, Sir Adam
Tate, Mavis C.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Emery, J. F.
Mander, G. le M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Markham, S. F.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Marsden, Commander A.
Touche, G. C.


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Train, Sir J.


Findlay, Sir E.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Fleming, E. L.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Turton, R. H.


Foot, D. M.
Medlicott, F.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Ward, Irene M. B, (Wallsend)


Furness, S. N.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Warrender, Sir V.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Munro, P.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Gluckstein, L. H.
Nall, Sir J.
White, H. Graham


Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Gower, Sir R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Granville, E. L.
Patrick, C. M.
Wragg, H.


Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Peake, O.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Petherick, M.
York, C.


Grimston, R. V.
Porritt, R. W.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton



Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Procter, Major H. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Radford, E. A.
Lieut.-Colonel Herbert and


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
 Major Sir James Edmondson.




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Collindridge, F.


Adamson, W. M.
Bevan, A.
Cove, W. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Daggar, G.


Ammon, C. G.
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, H.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Cape, T.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)


Banfield, J. W.
Charleton, H. C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Chater, D.
Day, H.


Batey, J.
Cluse, W. S.
Dobbie, W.


Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Ede, J. C.


Bellenger, F. J.
Cooks, F. S.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)




Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Frankel, D.
Lawson, J. J.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Gallacher, W.
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Gardner, B. W.
Leonard, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stephen, C.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Grenfell, D. R.
MacLaren, A.
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Marshall, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Mathers, G.
Thorne, W.


Groves, T. E.
Maxton, J.
Tinker, J. J.


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Messer, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Milner, Major J.
Viant, S. P.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Walkden, A. G.


Hardie, Agnes
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walker, J.


Hayday, A.
Naylor, T. E.
Watkins, F. G.


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Watson, W. McL.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Paling, W,
Westwood, J.


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Parker, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hicks, E. G.
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Pearson, A.
Wilson, G. H. (Attercliffe)


Jagger, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Poole, C. C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ritson, J.



Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sexton, T. M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Anderson.


Kirkwood, D.
Silverman, S. S.

Clause 2.—(Power to authorise recognized companies to purchase land compulsorily.)

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
including any land adjacent to the camp site and playing fields for the preservation of the amenities of the site.
In the Clause it is laid down that the company have power by compulsory purchase to acquire land for the purposes of their functions in connection with the construction, maintenance and management of camps. I suppose that in the ordinary way that would be the land for the actual site of the camp and for playing fields. For this purpose probably some 10 or 20 acres would be required for the camp itself, and another 10 acres for the purposes of playing fields. But there might also be land lying alongside, perhaps some fields in a valley or a mountain-side, that the company felt it was essential to preserve from the point of view of the amenities of the district, and if that land were not purchased by the company, it might be bought by some independent organisation that, attracted there by the camp, would set up a fair ground or buildings of a type which would be wholly out of keeping with the spirit and scheme of the camp, and quite contrary to its purpose. It may be that the company would have the power under the Bill to purchase additional land in this way, but I want to make sure. I suggest to the Government that it would be fatal if they got their town-planning expert, whether

on the board or otherwise, and got the whole thing beautifully arranged, and if then some enterprising individual bought the land around or alongside and spoilt it all. That might easily be possible if the company had not power to look ahead and buy land adjacent to the camp and playing fields themselves.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Colville: The Bill, as the hon. Member says, provides for the compulsory purchase of land for the purposes of the construction, maintenance and management of camps, and in Clause 5 "management" is denned as follows:
 'management,' in relation to a camp, includes the arrangement and supervision of all matters connected with the use of the camp, and the provision of facilities for recreation for the persons using it 
What we have in mind is that there is power to purchase ample land, not only for the erection of the camp, but also to allow of extensions to the camp. In the Debate on Clause 1 it was made clear that the Government have it in mind that these camps in certain circumstances might be considerably extended. Accordingly, the company will have power to purchase land for camp buildings, bearing in mind the possibility of considerable extensions for playing fields and for recreation, not necessarily within the narrow limits of the playing fields, but a useful area of land to cover in this wide sense the recreation of the people for whom the camp is required. The purchase of land by the company would take the form of what we call in Scotland a mansion house


and policies, the policies being the land near the house which would normally be used by the owner. In this case the policies would be the land for the playing fields, for purposes of recreation, and for future extensions. I think the Amendment goes a little far, and I could not agree to include powers for the purchase of a mountainside which might overlook the camp, or a wide area of ground for the purpose of preserving the amenities of the camp. The Amendment would really provide power to acquire compulsorily large tracts of land, which would be sterilised for industrial or other uses, for the purpose of preserving the amenities of the camp itself, and that is further than we could recommend going. It is, however, our intention that the powers under the Bill should be applied widely enough to give all reasonable facilities to the camp, and not simply to draw narrow limits around the camp buildings and one or two football grounds.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: If we could be assured that in all these camps there will be, to use the right hon. Gentleman's expression, a mansion house and policies, we should be delighted, and many of our present anxieties would be removed, but the definition of "management" given in Clause 5 specifically excludes the purposes which the Amendment has in view. I would urge upon the Government that there is a real danger that, after these camps have been established and such land as the Government want has been taken, enterprising people will come and put up amusement parks and so on of a most undesirable nature. If the company had the power which the Amendment seeks to give them, they might be able to avoid that kind of thing at no great expense to the State and with considerable benefit to the country as a whole. The provision is not a compulsory provision. It does not compel the company to do this, but only authorises them to do it. I hope the Government will reconsider the matter and accept the Amendment.

6.9 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I too hope that the Government will be willing to reconsider this matter, especially as there is no need to use this suggested addition to the Clause except in specific cases where

the danger that has been alluded to arises. No one would wish to see these camp sites exploited in an undesirable way or for commercial purposes.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. Poole: Surely, the main object of these camps will be destroyed if there is any possibility of industrialisation in their vicinity. We are seeking to provide that these camps shall be surrounded by a maximum of open country, in order that they may be safe places to which children from industrial areas may be evacuated, but if we are only to take the ground provided for in Clause 5, for the camp and playing fields, it is quite possible that in a few years' time the camp would find itself in a semi-industrial area, or there might be large-scale building accommodations in the vicinity of the camp, so that eventually the purpose of the camp might be destroyed owing to failure to make the provision which this Amendment seeks to make in order to preserve the amenities of the site.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I have no doubt that a good many hon. Members know the neighbourhood of Deepcut Camp, near Aldershot, which is one of the military camps which the War Office took some trouble to lay out. On the opposite side of the road there is now a series of miserable shacks, in which refreshments of a very dubious character are sold, and where, I understand, late at night, private entertainments of a very reprehensible character are occasionally carried on. Surely there will be a great temptation near these camps for the same kind of thing to happen unless the company is armed with powers to acquire any land that could be put to such uses if they have reason to fear that it will be so used. From the point of view of school camps, it would be very desirable that that kind of development adjacent to a camp should be prevented. Anyone who has been responsible for the running and for the discipline of a camp, whether for adults or for juveniles, knows that these are very important points. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman in his answer fully appreciated all the things that may arise in the neighbourhood of these camps once they get going. I sincerely hope he will find it possible to give more sympathetic consideration to the Amendment.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I think that, although the Minister of Health is not here, the Secretary of State for Scotland is in a position to act and I hope he will respond to the obvious desire of the Committee that these companies should be given power, when they think fit, to act in the direct interests of the camps. I think he was exaggerating somewhat when he alluded to the idea of a mountain-side—

Mr. Colville: It was the hon. Member's own word.

Mr. Mander: You can have very small mountains. The right hon. Gentleman need not be alarmed by that phrase; I was thinking only of some reasonable accommodation land essential to the preservation of the amenities of the camp. I hope the right hon. Gentleman may be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Colville: I am sorry I cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, but I assure the hon. Member that I am not unsympathetic. Compulsory powers are strong powers, and, while I agree that they should be applied in such a way that the value of the camp from the point of view of the recreation of the people using the living accommodation and playing fields is taken fully into account, and while I would like to see that principle borne in mind and acted upon so as to prevent some of the developments which the hon. Member has mentioned, yet to accept the Amendment would make it possible for very large tracts of land to be acquired compulsorily, and possibly unreasonably. We must bear in mind the primary purpose of the Bill, which is to establish in peace-time camps in carefully selected parts of the country. I know my own end of this work best, of course—the Scottish end. I know the nine sites that have been selected in Scotland, and I do not think there is much prospect of undesirable development near those camps; but I can imagine that a camp situated near the main road might attract buildings or shacks of the type which the hon. Member mentioned, and, in my own view, in purchasing ground for camps, that should be borne in mind. But I think the Amendment is too wide.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. Messer: It seems to have escaped the attention of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be impossible for compulsory acquisition to take place without the consent of the Minister, and that, therefore, he would have power to prevent the undesirable acquisition of land. I see nothing in what the Minister has said that is an argument against the Amendment. It is not a case of putting into the hands of a company a weapon that they can use indiscriminately, but of providing power to prevent these abuses to which reference has been made.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman probably are stronger in support of the Amendment than against it. The order for the compulsory acquisition of land, as has been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), must of necessity be confirmed by the Minister. Is it not just that land which is being acquired compulsorily, because there is an unwilling seller, that is likely to be used for an undesirable purpose? If there is likely to be any possibility of using this land for the exploitation of the camp, and if there is an unwilling seller of the land for the purposes of the camp, the people acquiring the camp should have the power which is proposed in the Amendment. I could have understood an objection being raised if the hon. Member had been seeking to restrict the amount of land which should be acquired, but when he is seeking to extend the power of acquisition I cannot see any objection.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: The Minister seemed to suggest that these companies have power to acquire land of this kind. They have compulsory powers, under Clause 2, to acquire land
for the purposes of their functions in connection with the construction, maintenance and management of camps,
and their functions are defined in Clause 5, which says that "construction"
includes the making of any alterations and additions to any building to adapt it for use in connection with the camp,
and management
includes the arrangement and supervision of all matters connected with the use of the


camp, and the provision of facilities for recreation for the persons using it.

Mr. Colville: I referred to Clause 5. I argued that the powers given were sufficiently wide to enable the company to purchase a sufficient area of land to give reasonable protection. To go beyond that, and acquire, for the sake of the community, large tracts of land, is going beyond the purposes of the Bill. These powers, if reasonably used, are sufficient to give protection to the camp.

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point. The courts are going to decide this matter, not the Minister. The Minister may prohibit a scheme, but he cannot give powers. In my reading of the Sub-section, there is nothing to authorise the company to prevent land being used for setting up shops or shacks.

Mr. Colville: The camps will obviously vary considerably in size. There is no standard size laid down. In buying an area of land, the company will be entitled to acquire sufficient to give them protection round about.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: A company may have to deal with an owner who does not desire to sell, and who will contest the right of the companies to buy a given area of land. When that comes before the courts, the courts will have to interpret Clause 2 in relation to Clause 5. Unless the company can show, to the satisfaction of the court, that the land is required for recreation, and for no other purpose, they will not be able to buy it. We want them to have the ability, in cases where they want to do so, to acquire such land. And I would remind the Minister that such acquisition will be subject to the Minister's approval.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Surely the most suitable land to acquire is land which is within a ring fence.

Mr. Colville: Within what?

Mr. Ede: A ring fence. That may be an Anglicism which the right hon. Gentleman does not understand. As far as possible, there should be no highways, usable by the public at large, running across. Let us assume that the site is of a very substantial acreage. Just opposite the main entrance gate of what has previously been a baronial mansion, or the estate of some person of property, there may be no shops at all now, because the owner of the property deals with the London stores. There will be brought down a number of persons who desire to shop locally. What is to prevent the person on the other side of the road, opposite the main entrance gate, selling the land? There is nothing in Clause 5 to enable the company to obtain an order for the compulsory acquisition of this land. Unless the Minister addresses himself to that, the case for this Amendment is proved. We are not concerned with the original purchase, but with later purchases that may have to be made afterwards to preserve the original purchase.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I understand that the Minister has made no concession of any kind, in spite of the evident desire of the Committee that some concession should be made. I think the attitude of the Government is extremely serious and may have a most disastrous effect on the aspect of these camps in various parts of the country. If the Secretary of State for Scotland, who, after all, is not concerned with the major part of this Bill, is not prepared to do anything to meet the feelings of the Committee, we ought to be able to ask the Minister of Health himself to hear the arguments.

Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Committee divided: Ayes 112; Noes, 206.

Division No. 79.]
AYES.
[6.27 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Beaumont, H. (Batley)
Cape, T.


Adamson, Jennie L. (Dartford)
Bellenger, F. J.
Charleton, H. C.


Adamson, W. M.
Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Chater, D.


Ammon, C. G.
Bevan, A.
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.


Bartlett, C. V. O.
Buchanan, G.
Cocks, F. S.


Batty, J.
Burke, W. A.
Collindridge, F.




Cove, W. G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Dalton, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kirkwood, D.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Dobbie, W.
Lathan, G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.
Stephen, C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Leslie, J. R.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Fool, D. M.
Lunn, W.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Frankel, D.
Macdonald, G. Ince)
Summerskill, Dr. Edith


Gallacher, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gardner, B. W.
McGhee, H. G.
Thorne, W.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Mander, G. le M.
Tinker, J. J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Marshall, F.
Tomlinson, G.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Mathers, G.
Viant, S. P.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Walkden, A. G.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Walker, J.


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watkins, F. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Watson, W. Mel.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.
Westwood, J.


Groves, T. E.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
White, H. Graham


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Paling, W.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Parker, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Hardie, Agnes
Parkinson, J. A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pearson, A.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Poole, C. C.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Richards, R. (Wroxham)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ritson, J.



Hicks, E. G.
Sexton, T. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Shinwell, E.
Sir Percy Harris and Sir Hugh


Jagger, J.
Silverman, S. S.
Seely.


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Simpson, F. B.





NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Donner, P. W.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Dorman-Smith, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir R. H.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)


Apsley, Lord
Duncan, J. A. L.
Keeling, E. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Assheton, R.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Ellis, Sir G.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Emery, J. F.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Bernays, R. H.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Blair, Sir R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Levy, T.


Bossom, A. C.
Fildes, Sir H.
Lewis, O.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Findlay, Sir E.
Lipson, D. L.


Bracken, B.
Fleming, E. L.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Broadbridge, Sir G. T.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lloyd, G. W.


Brooke, H. (Lewisham, W.)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Loftus, P. C.


Brown, Rt. Hon.' E. (Leith)
Furness, S. N.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Bull, B. B.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, H. W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
McKie, J. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cary, R. A.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Macnamara, Lt.-Col. J, R. J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Granville, E. L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Maitland, Sir Adam


Channon, H.
Grimston, R. V.
Makins, Brigadier-General Sir Ernest


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Markham, S. F.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Sir D. H.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Colville, Rt. Hon. John
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Medlicott, F.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Courthops, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Critchley, A.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hepworth, J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Crooke, Sir J. Smedley
Higgs, W. F.
Munro, P.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hogg, Hon. Q. McG.
Nail, Sir J.


Cross, R. H.
Holdsworth, H.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Crossley, A C.
Hopkinson, A.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Howitt, Dr. A. B
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Patrick, C. M.


Culverwell, C. T.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Peake, O.


Davison, Sir W. H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Petherick, M.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hunloke, H. P.
Porritt, R. W.


Denville, Alfred
Hunter, T.
Radford, E. A.




Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Shakespeare, G. H
Train, Sir J.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Rayner, Major R. H.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Turton, R. H.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Smithers, Sir W.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Reed, Sir H. S. (Aylesbury)
Snadden, W. McN.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Somervell, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Reid, W. Allan (Darby)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Warrender, Sir V.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Watt, Lt.-Col. G. S. Harvie


Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Rosbotham, Sir T.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Sutcliffe, H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Wragg, H.


Russell, Sir Alexander
Tate, Mavis C.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Salmon, Sir I.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
York, C.


Samuel, M. R. A.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Thomas, J. P. L



Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Schuster, Sir G. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Captain Waterhouse and Lieut.-


Scott, Lord William
Touche, G. C.
Colonel Herbert.


Question put, and agreed to.

Question again proposed, "That the proposed words be there inserted."

6.35 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I am very glad that we have now the advantage of the presence of the Minister of Health, as I am sure that the matter we are debating is worthy of his consideration. No doubt representations have been made to him as to the force of the arguments. The Government are giving power to purchase land compulsorily for the purpose of camps and playing fields. It may well be that in certain places vacant land will be lying around in the immediate neighbourhood, in a valley or on a hillside or something of that sort, and some enterprising builder or individual may come along and set up a fair ground or put up glaring advertisements and completely spoil the whole idea and purpose of camping sites. This is not a party matter at all, but it is a vital question affecting national amenities that the companies should have the power, when they think fit in special circumstances—alter the Amendment if you like, but it seems to be perfectly watertight—to purchase such land compulsorily. It may be said that they would buy up large areas of land which would be quite unnecessary, but the answer to that is absolute and complete, namely, that the Minister himself must approve of it, and nothing of the kind could result. I earnestly urge the Minister to consider whether he cannot make a concession in the spirit in which he met proposals put forward in the earlier part of the Debate and so give great satisfaction to Members in all parts of the Committee. If this is not done, there will be a very serious danger of a number of eyesores being erected not in the camps, but as blots on the landscape around the camps by people

whose only interest will be to make money out of them. We are simply asking, in a carefully safeguarded Clause, that opportunity should be given to prevent this kind of thing.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. H. Strauss: I should like to put to the Minister one possible point in support of some Amendment of this kind. The Minister may reply that any such addition is unnecessary in cases where the land is already subject to a town planning scheme, but it is possible that these camps will be placed in rural areas where there is no town planning scheme at present in operation. In those circumstances, something on these lines might be necessary to protect amenities. It is only necessary, as has already been pointed out, that the power should exist in case the right to acquire the land has to come before the court. It would still remain completely under the control of the Minister whether such powers should in fact be exercised, and it would not be necessary for the purpose of the preservation of amenities in many places where town and country planning schemes are in operation. There are likely, however, to be some cases in which some such power would be necessary. In any event, I appeal to the Minister to consider that point, and there is this additional argument, that, if there were this power, it might give the Minister an additional inducement to bring town planning schemes into operation at the earliest possible moment.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I hope that the Minister will adopt a reasonable attitude in response to this proposal. A great number of these camps will be situated upon inexpensive land. The land will be


inexpensive when the camp is first established, but it will gradually appreciate in value. Every kind of undesirable enterprise will be attempted in order to take advantage of the assembly of large numbers of persons in these camps periodically, if not permanently, at certain seasons of the year. Efforts will be made to carry out land speculation and to erect almost every kind of undesirable enterprise, not only of the type which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend but of a type even more undesirable. I know of a number of holiday camps which have been erected, and the first thing that subsequently happened was that an enterprising individual purchased land and secured permission to erect a public-house. Whereas a licence was quite unobtainable in the case of the holiday camp, when the public-house was erected just outside the holiday camp, a licence was easily obtained. I do not want to suggest that in these circumstances no licence should ever be given for a rural public-house, but we should not have that sort of enterprise around holiday camps which, erected, first of all for wartime purposes, undoubtedly will develop into centres of physical fitness and physical training. I can see that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) is eager to tell us that there should be perfect freedom in this matter.

Mr. Macquisten: The hon. Member is quite wrong.

Mr. Garro Jones: Then I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to support me. If I felt that he was going to do so, I should certainly bring my remarks to a close, because his advocacy would be far more effective than mine. If the Government refuse to adopt the Amendment or something like it, only one conclusion can be drawn, namely, that the Government wish to protect one of the most fruitful sources of private profit which exists in the present competitive capitalist world, and that is, the unearned increment in land. Only a few days ago I had occasion to comment upon a sale of land by the present First Commissioner of Works, who owned a farm near Cockfosters which after the War was worth £5,000. It was put up at auction after certain developments had occurred at the expense of the community, and it fetched £116,000, which, even

judged by the most optimistic profits of the present day in reference to armaments or anything else, must be admitted to be a handsome profit.
There can be no valid reason why the Government should refuse to adopt some provision of this kind. It is only right that these camps, originally intended to accommodate, say 1,000 people, should have amenities. Perhaps they may not have anything more than a putting green, but may desire further land for tennis courts or even for a golf course—golf is becoming an increasingly democratic game—and it would be lamentable if they were to be confined to the original land. I am appealing to the Minister, without any partisan spirit at all, to do something to strengthen the provisions in this Bill in the direction now desired.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. Hutchinson: The Amendment seems to be wholly unnecessary. If the areas in which these camps are to be situated are protected by a town-planning scheme, the town-planning authority has abundant power to prevent the type of enterprise which the hon. Member fears. It may be, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), that these areas may already have been zoned for shopping areas, and if they are so zoned it does not appear that much harm would be done. If it is proposed to carry out developments of the kind which the hon. Member has in mind then the town-planning authority have control, if they like to exercise it, and they can prevent any development of the undesirable shack type. If the camp is situated in an area where there is no town-planning scheme it could be a simple matter for the local authority to secure control. The alternative of hon. Members is that a camp company should acquire such an area as would protect the camp from this type of development. That means that they might have to acquire a great deal more land than is necessary for the purposes of the camp, and even then it would not protect the camp from this undesirable type of development. It would only mean that this development would be pushed a little further away; you would get a sort of green belt round the camp, but outside the green belt you would get just exactly the kind of development which hon. Members opposite want to avoid. The only effective way of dealing


with this matter is by a proper exercise of town-planning powers by local authorities, and I apprehend that before the Minister confirms any one of these proposals this is one of the matters which naturally he will bear in mind.

6.47 p.m.

Major Milner: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) has not read the Bill. If he will look at Clause 3 he will see there that:
No provision contained in a scheme made under the Town Planning Act, 1925, or the Town and Country Planning Act, 1932, … shall apply to any land acquired or appropriated with the approval of the Minister by a recognised company.

Mr. Hutchinson: I was dealing with land which has not to be acquired and which will, of course, remain subject to the existing town-planning laws. The Clause to which the hon. and gallant Member refers deals with land which has been acquired.

Major Milner: That may be so in part but the hon. Member went on to point out that it may be within the province of the local authority or the town-planning committee to make provision for an application to the Minister whereby this matter might be dealt with. There is no provision in the Bill for direct notice to be given to local authorities. Indeed, the Bill is a striking instance of what is frequently the practice of this Government of ignoring democratic organisations, like local authorities, wherever they can possibly do so. Hence it became necessary for the Association of Municipal Corporations and other local authorities to suggest to the Government amendments providing for notice to be given to local authorities. In this case the power suggested is merely permissive and I cannot understand why the Government should not take advantage of it and in appropriate cases, and only in appropriate cases, see that the safeguards are provided. Unless they accept the Amendment I hope the matter will be taken to a Division.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I have always been of the opinion that a man ought to be allowed to get his own unearned increment. If people bring an enterprise to a district they ought to be able to buy as much land as they require in order

to obtain the unearned increment. It is no good coming years after and taxing this unearned increment, because you are taxing the wrong people. If these camps are going to increase the value of land why should they not be able to buy a good lump of the land and so reap the benefit? Suppose we had done that when our railways were being constructed. If we had paid double the price at which the land was valued before the railways came we should now all be able to travel for nothing and no injustice would have been done to anyone. I was once connected with a golf course with house-building sites all round it because of the amenities provided. We sold the ground rents and got our golf course for nothing, and some years afterwards we sold more and got our club house for nothing. I think it is an Amendment which the Government should accept and I cannot understand why there should be any opposition to it.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: Like the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) I am completely at a loss to understand why the Government should resist the Amendment so obstinately. There can only be two reasons, one that it is not desirable, and the other that the object of it is already achieved in the Bill. I take it that the Government do not take the first of these two positions. I should have thought it was impossible for the Government to say that the object of the Amendment is not desirable, and we are therefore driven back to the other possibility, that the object of the Amendment is already served. Looking at the wording of the Bill I do not think that is so. It may not be so, at least there is some doubt about it. In Clause 2 we have the words:
A recognised company may be authorised … to purchase land compulsorily for the … construction, maintenance and management of camps.
That may be thought to be sufficient, but in order to know what those words mean you have to look at the definition in Clause 5, and the word "management" is there defined in this way:
'Management' in relation to a camp includes the arrangement and supervision of all matters connected with the use of the camp, and the provision of facilities for recreation for the persons using it.
That is the only "management" which can be included within the meaning


of the word "management" in Clause 2. You do not acquire land in order to supervise all matters connected with the use of a camp or to provide facilities for recreation for the persons using the camp. It is obvious that the definition of "management" in Clause 5 makes it impossible to purchase, under Clause 2, land for management, and, therefore, if the object of the Amendment is desirable some amendment of this kind is necessary in order that it shall be achieved. When one finds the Government resisting so obstinately and persistently a case put forward by Members in all parts of the Committee, one is compelled to ask whether there may not be some other reason for it. Might it not be that some of the things referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire are things which the Government desire? Is it that they are so anxious to protect the interest of landowners, even when they are illegitimate interests, that even this reasonable Amendment must be resisted? Unless the Government want to rest under that suspicion their opposition to the Amendment should be withdrawn or modified. It is not a party point; there are no party interests in the matter at all. Unless there is some sinister reason why the Government cannot accept the Amendment I think it should be accepted.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I do not want to delay the proceedings of the Committee, but I am anxious that the Government's position should not be misunderstood. The Government's position is very much that which was put by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman). We think the powers are already in the Bill.

Mr. Mander: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Secretary of State of Scotland a moment ago made it perfectly clear that the powers were not in the Bill?

Mr. Elliot: I think it is necessary to get the point clear. We do not think the Amendment is necessary because the powers in the Bill are sufficient. The difficulty arises in this way. It is a question what amount of land adjacent to the site is necessary for the preservation of the amenities of the site. We all agree that the site should not be unreasonably large, for the reason that the House has provided us with a limited sum of money which we must layout to the best advan-

tage. Fundamentally, we all want to lay out this sum of money in the provision of camps, we do not want an undue proportion to be laid out in the acquisition of an undue quantity of land. We are bound by the Financial Resolution, and it may be possible to spread that money out in the mere acquisition of land and not in the construction of camps. I hope the Committee will bear that point in mind.
There is fundamentally only one way in which these matters can be safeguarded and that is by the use of the Town and Country Planning Acts. The hon. and learned Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) took a point which, I think, is important. In fact, land outside the camps is governed by the Planning Acts. The question arises whether the land adjacent to these camps for the most part is covered by town and country planning schemes, and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. H. Strauss) raised that point. Two-thirds of England and Wales is under planning already and, as these camps are by hypothesis to be between 20 and 40 miles from large towns, I think I can give the Committee the assurance that there is practically no land adjacent to them which is not covered by town and country planning control. Does not that go far to meet the point which the Committee wish to have safeguarded? [An HON. MEMBER: "The sites are not selected."] We have often told the House that the radii within which the sites lie have been to a large extent selected, and those radii cover areas which in practically every case are subject to country planning control now.

Mr. Benn: It is an amazing thing that the Minister who made the defence against the Amendment has never mentioned any of these things.

Mr. Elliot: The purpose of continuing the Debate was to elucidate points and, if we do not fully succeed in convincing hon. Members by certain arguments, we go further. Surely, it is undesirable that we should prolong debate unnecessarily by employing every argument which is relevant to the subject before the Committee. In the first place, the ground is covered by the Town and Country Planning Acts. Secondly, we are agreed that in the Bill the companies have all the necessary power to purchase sites of ade-


quate size and to go further and purchase sites necessary for recreational purposes. Is there anything further that the Committee would desire of the Government? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes, resign."] That would not tend to facilitate the progress of the Bill. It seems to partake of the use of the steam hammer to crack a nut.
Most of the ground round the camps is covered now, and there is no limitation in the Bill whereby sites of adequate size cannot be purchased for the camps. The Committee could not reasonably go beyond that without enunciating a principle which would need to be stretched to cover a great many more miles of land than is required for the particular camps that we have under consideration now. It might be held by certain people that an aerodrome makes land more desirable around it and that the Air Ministry should have power to extend its purchases far out into the realms of rural England to avoid an undesirable thing like a public house or any other kind of construction on any land adjacent to the aerodrome, and then on land adjacent to the land adjacent to the aerodrome, and then land adjacent to the land adjacent to the land adjacent to the aerodrome. One must be guided by common sense, and in this we shall do our best to be guided by common sense. We have no intention of allowing unreasonable development to take place. We desire to use this power of compulsory purchase, but I am sure the Committee will realise that, if we extend this power too far, we shall bring to an end the very essence of the Bill, which is rapidity in progress. The further you push the power of compulsory purchase the further you push opposition. I beg the Committee very seriously to consider that point.
I wonder if I might appeal to the Committee to come to a decision now. I have twice tried to get down to Wales to investigate rural conditions, and I had hoped to go there to-night. I do not wish to use that as an argument to press the Committee, but I am anxious that, if possible, we should come to a conclusion on this matter without undue delay. Perhaps with this explanation the hon. Member will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment to a Division.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Mander: The right hon. Gentleman told us that we are very much in Committee, and I think we are likely to be

very much in Committee for a very long time if the attitude taken up by the Government is that represented by him. The Minister of Health has treated the Committee in a much more sympathetic way than has the Secretary of State for Scotland, who completely and out of hand rejected the Amendment in toto by arguments quite different from those of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Colville: That is hardly fair to me, nor was it a paraphrase of my speech that he quoted. I adduced the argument that my right hon. Friend has used that the powers in existence are sufficient to acquire a sufficient area of land adequately to safeguard the camps, and my right hon. Friend has further raised the point about the Town and Country Planning Act, which has been used more in England than in Scotland.

Mr. Mander: I cannot help feeling that a good deal of what lies at the back of the Government's opposition to the Amendment is their fear of offending the landlord interest. They fear that, if they extend their power too far, they will arouse opposition, particularly in another place, which may delay the Bill. I am sorry, but I am driven to that conclusion. The Minister of Health said that the purpose of discussion was to elucidate points and to come to a conclusion. I am going to take him up on the lines of what he has said himself. He said that practically all the land where these camps are to be built is planned. He used the words "practically all," and he could not give any assurance that it is all the land. I am urging that the Amendment should be adopted for those cases which are not planned. There is a very strong case there. It will mean that the powers given under the Amendment will be used to a very small extent only, but they will be there in reserve for cases where there is no other legal provision. In the background you still have the power of the Minister to refuse if he thinks the powers have been improperly used. It is not fair for the Minister to blame the House of Commons for not getting on with the Bill and to suggest that he is prevented from going to Wales because we are debating it. That, surely, is not an attitude for the Government to take up. The reason why we cannot get on with the Bill—I say it in no unkind way—is the obstinate,


unreasonable attitude taken up by the Government of flat opposition to the Amendment.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves for Wales I think it is necessary to repudiate his suggestion that the purpose of going into Committee is not to employ arguments. The object of going into Committee is to secure Amendments in the Bill, and that is the object to which we are directing our attention. However much benefit the right hon. Gentleman's presence in Wales might confer on the scheme, I think he would be doing a better service if he stayed here and helped us to improve it. If he is prepared to accept the Amendment we shall be able to put him in a position to confer a benefit on the scheme in Wales, and thereafter he can carry out his visit. The issue between us has been narrowed by the discussion. The issue now is whether land shall be able to be acquired for the provision of facilities for recreation within the camps, or whether the powers should go further and enable the Minister to sanction the acquisition of land adjacent to the camp site and playing fields.

Mr. Elliot: Let us be clear about that. The Minister has power to do that now.

Mr. Garro Jones: If the Minister already has the power, why is he objecting to an Amendment which has no other purpose than to give him such power? Because the Amendment only provides that there shall be added to the Clause power to authorise the acquisition of land
including any land adjacent to the camp site and playing fields for the preservation of the amenities of the site.
Knowing the Minister's fertility and resource in argument, I can see very well that if a company came to him and said, "We wish to acquire additional land," he would say, "You already have a football field. That is sufficient facility for recreation and I decline to authorise the acquisition of land for any other purpose." Has he power to acquire land, for example a wood—

Mr. Elliot: Certainly, and, furthermore, the very Amendment does nothing more than leave it still in the discretion of the Minister. If the hon. Member asks whether I have power to acquire a wood, I say, Certainly, but it must be part of the camp site.

Mr. Garro Jones: The object of the Amendment is to enlarge the powers of the Minister to authorise the acquisition of land not only for the purpose of the camp and for recreation but also to preserve amenities, and the preservation of amenities is a much larger power than the provision of facilities for recreation. It is that third advance that we wish the Minister to make. He has given us no satisfying argument why it should not be adopted. The Committee would be willing to facilitate his departure for Wales if he showed a more reasonable spirit. If he could convince the Committee that the Amendment is undesirable, or alternatively accept it, neither of which he has done, he would be able to advance the progress of the Measure.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: We all want to reach a decision on this Amendment as quickly as possible, and if only the Minister would accept the Amendment, we should reach a conclusion at once. The right hon. Gentleman made an important point when he said that the real remedy is effective town and country planning. If he were confident that in every area where camps were to be put, there were now town and country planning arrangements which were going to be carried out effectively, our anxiety on this point would be less than it is. This Bill is only the forerunner of other developments. There will be many more camps than the 50 for which provision is now made, and town and country planning in our land at the present time is not really effective. It is not saving the amenities of the English countryside. I am sorry to say that I do not believe there are plans now in existence for a great many places where camps are going to be put, but even if they do exist, I am not confident the powers will be used as they ought to be used. Therefore, for this immediate matter which we are trying to carry through with all dispatch, I think it is a necessary and right power which the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) wants to give to the statutory companies.
I am still unable to find where there are powers under this Bill as it now stands. The right hon. Gentleman says that under Clause 2, as interpreted by Clause 5, he can purchase a wood. He can do so only if he can show to the courts, against a recalcitrant owner who


does not desire to sell, that those woods are going to be used for recreational purposes. Is he quite sure that the courts will accept his interpretation? I am not sure that they will do so. It may well be that the Government, in choosing a site for a camp, do so because the woods are there, and as soon as the owner has won his case in the courts and the woods are free to be sold, they may be cut down, and no one knows what may be put in their place. I hope the Minister will consider this matter again. The power certainly is not there, and none of the three Ministers who have spoken has been able to show that the power is there. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health told us that the money factor might be very important. The Government claim that under this Bill they are going to prevent profiteering in land, and that they are going to put the camps right out in the countryside, as far as possible from centres of population. I cannot believe that the additional money would be an important factor. I urge the Minister that it is we who want to trust to the dictates of common sense, and indeed we want to trust to the common sense of the Minister himself, but unless he accepts the Amendment we shall not be able to trust to his common sense, because he will not have the necessary powers, and many important amenities in the countryside, which would be protected if only the right hon. Gentleman would give way, may be lost.

7.18 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister of Health said that he did not think it would be possible to get agreement with me. I do not suppose it will be possible, because I want these camps to be centres of health, culture and safety, and not centres for exploitation. I want to call attention to the fact that it was hon. Members on this side—and I was among them—who forced the question of evacuation and camps upon the Home Secretary when he introduced the first Defence Bill. We forced him to put a Clause in the Bill dealing with this question, so that the matter is one which we have had under consideration always, whereas it has been forced upon the Government stage by stage to consider and understand what the problem means. This Bill represents a first experimental effort in the laying out of

great camps. Is it feasible to think that the sites for the camps will be in positions where it will be possible to develop the camps to the best advantage of the children or adults who will use them? Obviously, the Government, once having established the camp, must be in a position to acquire all sorts of land for cultural and recreational developments and for all sorts of amenities. To say that they will simply purchase the site, and that there the matter will end, is nonsense. As this is a great experiment that is being entered into, the Minister should have the most complete powers to acquire all kinds of land.
There is one point which I will mention in passing, as it may have a bearing on the question. This afternoon I have had a visitor who is a very keen research worker. He advised me that the sharepushers who have been squeezed out of the Stock Exchange and out of share-pushing as a result of the recent Bill have now found that, through the Property Acts, there is a loop-hole which enables them to form property companies, and they are speculating in land. One may find these share-pushers entering this field, now that 50 camps are to be established throughout the country—camps which are bound to develop later into great camps. What an opportunity there is here for exploitation of the grossest character, unless greater powers are taken by the Minister. I will say one last word, with all the best feelings that I can muster towards the Minister. Frankly, I do not think he should go to Wales. If he asks me, I will tell him where he should go.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise for intervening again in the Debate. The whole matter now boils down to the question whether or not the Minister has the powers without the Amendment being accepted. If he could show that he has those powers, I should agree that there is no point in pressing the Amendment. But has he the powers? Suppose that somebody came to him with a scheme for a camp, and he asked, "What land are you going to purchase?" and the person replied by indicating the land. Suppose that the Minister then asked, "What are you going to do with it?" and the reply was, "We are going to use this part of it as a camp site, and that part for other


purposes within Clause 2." Suppose that the Minister asked, "Why do you propose to buy the remainder of it?" and the reply was, "Because we want to preserve the amenities surrounding it," or "Because we want to prevent the exploitation of the unearned increment in the value of the land." The Minister would then be bound to say, "I have no power under Clause2 to sanction the purchase of land for that purpose." I should have thought that was plain. If the Minister has the power, I think he would be the first to say that there must be no doubt about it. If there is any doubt about it, why does he not either accept the Amendment or undertake, at a later stage, to introduce some Amendment which will put beyond all possible doubt the powers which he thinks he has already, but which many of us are satisfied that he has not?

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I want to make a final appeal to the Minister who, I know, is a most reasonable person, and who, I am sure, desires to act in accordance with the views expressed by the Committee. There has been a long Debate on this Amendment, and practically everybody—there was one exception—who has spoken has been in favour of accepting the Amendment. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will not give a promise that between now and the Report stage he will seriously consider whether some provision ought not to be included, in view of the discussion that has taken place. It might be more limited than the words of the Amendment, but surely the right hon. Gentleman could include something which would go a long way towards removing the real anxieties felt by many hon. Members in all parts of the Committee. If he were able to give such an assurance and to say that he would give close and sympathetic attention to what has been said, I should be glad to withdraw the Amendment.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I am anxious to meet the views of hon. Members as far as possible. Certainly, it does not seem to me, from the discussion which has taken place, that the words of the Amendment would anything like safeguard what all of us have in mind. I have been turning over in my mind some such wording as:

Reasonably required for the purposes of their functions in connection with the construction, maintenance and management of camps.
I think that perhaps such a wording would go a long way towards meeting the point of view of the hon. Member. Take, for instance, the purchase of a 20-acre field. It has been said that it the camp got everything it wanted from that field, there would be no power to go beyond that. Obviously, that is not the point of view of the Government. Therefore, the hon. Member may take it that I will examine the matter from the point of view of what would be reasonably required. That is as far as I can go. I think the words to which I have referred indicate what I have in mind.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The right hon. Gentleman has suggested the addition of the words "reasonably required." May I suggest a further addition at the end of the definition—
Reasonably required for the purposes of their functions in connection with the construction, maintenance and management of camps, and for the preservation of their amenities.
If the right hon. Gentleman would introduce those additional words, it would go a considerable way towards meeting our point.

Mr. Elliot: I think the hon. Member will realise that it is exactly for that purpose that I am not moving anything in the nature of a manuscript Amendment now, but merely undertaking to consider some points which can be considered and which might form the subject of an Amendment later on. I do not think I can go any further than that.

Mr. Mander: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and as I am sure that he will be willing to consult me and other hon. Members interested in this matter as regards the wording of the Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.28 p.m.

Sir Adam Maitland: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, after "shall," to insert:
subject to the provisions of the next succeeding Sub-section.
This Amendment, which is introductory to my Amendment in page 2, line 41, is


a simple one, and I hope that the Minister will regard it as being very reasonable. Its purpose is to secure that when the recognised companies seek to purchase compulsorily land in an area in which local authorities are also responsible for performing public services, those local authorities shall have the right to express their views before compulsory powers are granted. I think that probably that is a principle which will be accepted by the Minister, and if he does not favour the precise wording which I have proposed, I shall be happy to move the Amendment in an amended form.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Colville: We propose to accept this Amendment. As my hon. Friend said, the Amendment is introductory to an Amendment in his name in page 2, line 41. Its purpose is to provide that a local authority in whose area it is proposed to acquire a site by means of the compulsory-purchase machinery shall be given notice of that intention. That notice would contain a description of the site, the name of the place, a copy of the order, and a map showing the situation of the land. We think that is reasonable and that local authorities are entitled to have that notice.

Sir A. Maitland: May I thank my right hon. Friend for accepting the Amendment?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 29, leave out from "if," to the end of line 30, and insert:

"the recognised company were a local authority."—[Mr. Bernays.]

7.31 p.m.

Mr. Donner: I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 35 to 41.
The object of the Amendment is to delete the privilege of the Minister to dispense with a local inquiry should a case of a compulsory purchase order be Submitted to him for confirmation within two years of the passing of the Act. The object I have in mind is to ensure that in all cases a local inquiry will take place, believing as I do that the power to withhold an inquiry removes the only public opportunity for a man to voice his protest if he believes he is the subject of an injustice. I believe that he should not be deprived of that opportunity, and I think

that that right should be maintained if he suffers from a sense of grievance and particularly if it happens to be a bonâ fide landowner or a tenant. I mention that because I am concerned, not with the speculator, but with the bonâfide landowner, who is in this position, that if a compulsory order is made, he will be informed that his land will be purchased compulsorily, and the figure of compensation will be arrived at by "a Government valuer." The figure of compensation is arrived at, not by the seller nor even by an impartial valuer, but by the purchaser, and this procedure seems to me to savour so much of autocracy that a public protest should not be denied to him.
In that connection I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would define rather more precisely than he did on the Second Reading what is intended by "a Government valuer." That was the phrase employed by him, and I think there might be some advantage if the Government attempted a closer definition of that phrase. Is a Government valuer a man appointed by the Government, is he a local man, or is he a civil servant? It seems to me to be a point of some substance, inasmuch as if he is a local man, with local experience and local knowledge, he will be at a greater advantage when trying to estimate what is in fact a fair price, whereas if he is merely a civil servant, he will have none of those advantages.
It may be argued against my Amendment that a man who does not wish to sell or who has any protest to make will have ample opportunity, after he has been notified that a compulsory purchase will take place, to approach the Minister direct; and naturally my right hon. Friend would extend the same consideration to a man who sent a direct protest as he would to the report of one of his own inspectors. Nevertheless, I think there is a distinction which must be made between the private approach of an individual to the appropriate Minister and the holding of a public inquiry. I therefore hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to consider this Amendment sympathetically, because no assurance that equal treatment will be extended can possibly in my view, allay the apprehension in the mind of a man so affected. There is a differentiation which cannot be denied between private approach and public inquiry. There


seems to me to be no adequate redress for such a man if a public inquiry is refused. It may also be argued in favour of maintaining the Bill as it standś that a similar provision to this was included in the Housing Act of 1919, and in point of fact that argument was employed by my right hon. Friend during the Second Reading of this Bill, but that is not an argument in favour of abolishing an inquiry. I do not know whether the powers under that particular Act were ever employed and, if so, to what extent they were employed, but even aśsuming that they were employed, I think my right hon. Friend will agree that it is desirable that an inquiry should be the rule and not the exception, and indeed the holding of a local inquiry in similar circumstances has so far always been customary.
The argument employed by the Government in favour of the Bill as it stands is, of course, that speed is the overriding consideration, and my right hon. Friend very courteously informed me that for this reason he would find it very difficult to accept the Amendment. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the problem of speed could be overcome if my right hon. Friend were willing to divide the inquiry into two parts. Quite clearly there is the question of an inquiry as to the site, should there be a protest in regard to the choice of site, and there is the possibility of an inquiry as regards the nature of the price. If it is argued that the overriding consideration of speed prevents the holding of a local inquiry as regards the site, because that would delay the whole matter, surely there is no reason why there should not be an inquiry, after the transaction had been completed, as regards the fairness of the compensation suggested. In the Second Reading Debate my right hon. Friend said:
The whole purpose of this procedure is to secure expedition, and I can assure the House that we shall proceed forthwith to acquire the land and to construct the camps, and if necessary arguments will be carried on at greater leisure at a later date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1939; col. 2085; Vol. 345.]
What, therefore, I am asking my right hon. Friend to consider is whether he will be willing to accept his own words and, between now and the Report stage, to consider inserting an Amendment which would allow the holding of a local inquiry as regards the question of price and the fairness of the compensation proposed,

because if the price is to be fixed by a Government valuer, the fact does remain that the owner of the land is at the mercy of one man's judgment and one man's discretion. I hope, therefore, that between now and the Report stage my right hon. Friend will be so good as to consider whether he could insert an Amendment which would secure that justice is done.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Hutchinson: No doubt, as my hon. Friend has said, this proviso was inserted in the Bill with the object of expediting the acquisition of these sites, but the point that I desire to put to the Minister is that the effect of this Amendment will not be to compel him to hold a local inquiry into every compulsory purchase plan, because, under Section 161 of the Local Government Act, which this proviso proposes should be suspended, it is provided that if the Minister is satisfied that the objection can be met by payment of compensation, he may confirm the compulsory purchase order without holding any local inquiry at all. This Amendment, therefore, relates only to those cases where the objection—and I would remind the Committee that it is not only the objection of the landowner; it is the objection of the tenant or occupier as well—of the landowner or the tenant or occupier cannot be met by the payment of compensation. I submit to my right hon. Friend that it is reasonable to ask that in what may be an exceptional case, where the injury which is done to the landowner or the occupier is not one which can be met subsequently by the payment of compensation, there should be a local inquiry before the compulsory purchase order is confirmed. I hope my right hon. Friend will see the reasonableness of what we are asking in this Amendment, which is that a local inquiry should be held, not in every case, but only in that exceptional case where the objections of the owner or occupier cannot be met by payment of compensation.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I have listened with interest to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson). My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke said he could realise the desirability of speed and the possibilities of delay involved in a local inquiry, but he said,


very truly, "We do not like leaving anybody solely to the mercy of the Department as to what the Department will pay for a piece of land." That was, I think, the gravamen of his charge, and he said, "If you could show me some way by which, even although a local inquiry were cut out, the person in question should not be left to the mercy of the Department, and still more to the mercy of an official of the Department, I should be satisfied." I think I can meet him on that point. He asked who would be the valuer. The person who would conduct the negotiations would be an officer of the Valuation Department of the Inland Revenue, but the last word would not be with him. The procedure which I have in mind—and if there is any doubt about it, I will see that words are inserted between now and the Report stage to make it clear—is a procedure whereby, if the individual was not satisfied with the price offered, he could go to arbitration, and then the matter would come under the official arbitrator who would be an independent arbitrator appointed under the Acquisition of Land Act. I think that would meet the point that my hon. Friend has in view, and I shall be glad to look into it before the Report stage and to discuss it with him in order to make sure that we are at one on the point.

Mr. Donner: I thank my right hon. Friend for his promise to consider the inclusion of the words, "a Government valuer." Would it be possible for him to consider granting a local inquiry should an interested owner desire it? There is a certain apprehension in the minds of a number of people on this point. Perhaps between now and the Report stage my right hon. Friend will see his way to reconsider the matter.

Mr. Elliot: I will look into the matter. I do not want to be unreasonable, but in the discussion of a case a matter of considerable urgency might arise. I will consider the point between now and the Report stage and discuss it further with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Donner: I thank my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ede: Would not the Minister's action in declining a local inquiry by an administrative act be a matter which

the hon. Member, if he took objection, could raise on the Floor of the House on an appropriate occasion?

Mr. Elliot: Certainly. Any action of the Minister can be brought to the notice of the House.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. Kirkwood: I am always suspicious when the landlords, the owners of our native land, are looking after their interests here. I always find that the Government of the day are very anxious to placate the landlords. We find the landlords in force to-day and I am suspicious. They grudge the land to be acquired in this fashion, whether they want it or not, land that is absolutely necessary, the Government say, for the defence of our native land, to save children who have to be evacuated out of danger zones. We have the representatives of the landlords here stating their case in order to safeguard their interests. You never find the landlords coming along and telling us that because of the development of industry, etc., their land has been made more valuable, and they do not intend to make any extra charge. On the contrary, they are always scooping in all they possibly can.

Mr. Elliot: I would appeal to my hon. Friend. I do not want to cut short the discussion in any way, but I was merely giving an explanation to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner). My hon. Friend merely raised a point as to whether this matter might be dealt with by some independent person, and not merely by a Government Department. I gave him that assurance. I do hope that the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) will not think it is necessary to continue the discussion unduly.

Mr. Kirkwood: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will not detain the Committee unduly on this matter, but I know the conditions that prevail in the rural districts, not only of Scotland but of England, where the influence of the landlord is still felt. They do not want some independent individual to come along to settle things. They want it to be some local individual, so that the landlord can bring pressure to bear upon him in order that his decision will be in favour of the landlord for the time being. I hope the Minister of Health will watch that side


of the question and see that the landlords of this country do not get away by pinching too much, especially when they are asking the working classes to make sacrifices. My own trade union to-day has decided that men out on strike for their rights have to go back to their work. The Union Executive think that the country should be considered first. Therefore, they say: "Back to your work, and we will consider what is to be done." The same thing ought to be done with the landlords.

Mr. Elliot: That is not the purpose of the Clause. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, but I do assure him that that is not the purpose of the Clause.

Mr. Kirkwood: The Government have to surrender every time to the landlords, and that is what we of my class are being asked to do to-day. The landlords will sacrifice nothing. They ask my class to make sacrifice, to give up all they have—to give up their labour power, the only thing they have to sell in order to live, and to sacrifice all their rights. I want the Minister of Health to see to it that the landlords toe the line, the same as everybody else, and to see to it that he does not surrender, and that the power of the landlords of this country must not be brought to bear.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Westwood: I know the desire of the Minister of Health to get to a far better place than this as speedily as possible. He made a special reference to an independent arbiter. The right hon. Gentleman, with his experience as Secretary of State for Scotland, knows the difficulty that is facing the local authorities and will face this Housing Association in getting an independent arbiter. It will mean that they will require to take the arbiter from a panel of men who are engaged in private business. You cannot get an independent arbiter to deal with a problem of this kind unless in the case of this Bill you take the advice which has been repeatedly refused by the right hon. Gentleman himself as Secretary of State for Scotland and by his successors in office to set up an independent panel of officials connected with the Ministry of Health in England and the Department of Health in Scotland, who will be free, without any influence of any kind from private individuals, to give an independent decision in a matter of this kind.
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that in acquiring land for housing purposes, time and again in Scotland we have been fleeced, because we have had to accept from the panel an alleged independent individual who was on the panel and would give a decision in favour of a local authority one week, and on the panel to give a decision in favour of a private landlord the next week. You cannot get independence in those conditions. This is a war-time Measure for a war which I hope will never come, and if the war never comes it will be a glorious opportunity for giving really health opportunities for our people. We must get the land at the cheapest and most reasonable prices possible, but you cannot get it unless you have a case of this kind decided either by the sheriff in Scotland, or a county court judge in England, or by setting up a panel of individuals not serving in private practice, and who have no private interest to serve in giving a decision. I should like the right hon. Gentleman to give a further explanation of what is meant by the independent arbiter to which he referred.

Mr. Elliot: My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke brought forward an Amendment to delete certain lines from the Bill. I am resisting that Amendment and do not propose to accept it. I was explaining to my hon. Friend the procedure under which this Clause would operate. Therefore, I think the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk (Mr. Westwood) can be reassured on that point. I am not acceding to the request that has been made. I was merely explaining the procedure under which this matter will be dealt with, first of all by a valuer of the Department of Inland Revenue, then if that is queried by an independent arbitrator under the existing Statutes relating to the acquisition of land. The procedure is somewhat different between Scotland and England, because in England the arbitrators are chosen by the Lord Chief Justice. I can assure the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk that the procedure which he desires is pretty carefully carried out in England, but I do not think it goes quite so far in Scotland. This would not, however, be the appropriate occasion on which to amend the law relating to land acquisition in Scotland and England. I can only say that the procedure such as my hon. Friend desires is in fact in practice and I pro-


pose to adhere to it. I was indicating to the hon. Member for Basingstoke that it was not necessarily a matter of agreement between buyer and seller.

Mr. Westwood: As this Bill also applies to Scotland, will the right hon. Gentleman, for the purpose of the Bill, try to assimilate the law of Scotland and England for the appointment of these really independent arbitrators? If he does that, I can assure him on behalf of my hon. Friends that we shall raise no objection.

Mr. Elliot: I obviously cannot undertake anything like that in the absence of the Secretary of State for Scotland. If I did so he would object very much. I do not think that the matter arises here. We shall, however, take note of what the hon. Member mentions.

Mr. Donner: On the assurance given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.58 p.m.

Sir A. Maitland: I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, at the end, to insert:
(3) In its application to a recognised company who make under this Section a compulsory purchase order Sub-section (3) of Section one hundred and sixty-one of the Local Government Act, 1933, shall have effect as if it provided that the notice required by paragraph (a) of that Sub-section to be published in local newspaper shall also be served on the council of every borough, or urban or rural district, in which any land comprised in the order is situate.
As the right hon. Gentleman has indicated his intention to accept the Amendment, I formally move it.

Mr. Bernays: We propose to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Ammon: I want to give the Minister an opportunity to make clear in what he has already done in a letter to the Surrey County Council. Discussions have taken place with the Ministry with regard to the position due to the creation of the London Green Belt. The matter has been satisfactorily dealt with as regards the compulsory acquisition of Green Belt land.

Difficulty has arisen in regard to land which has been sterilised by the owner in consideration of money paid by a planning authority. The owner is entitled to live there until such time as he has finished with it, and then it falls into the control of the public authority. As the Bill is at present drafted there is just a possibility that compulsory purchase might be effected and we should be landed in difficulties. In a letter written yesterday to the Surrey County Council, I understand the Minister gave an assurance to the effect that he would not approve as a site any land included in the Green Belt except with the consent of the authority concerned. He also said as regards land sterilised by the owner that he would not confirm a compulsory purchase order, unless he was satisfied that the terms of the acquisition by a recognised company were such as would safeguard the financial position of the planning authority. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he is prepared to implement those assurances.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: I have great pleasure in doing so, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Camberwell (Mr. Ammon) for giving me the opportunity. I fully agree with his version of the correspondence which I had with the: Surrey County Council, namely, that I was prepared to give assurances that I would not approve as a site any land included in the Green Belt, except with the consent of the authority concerned. As regards land in general which has been sterilised by the owner in consideration of money paid by a planning authority, I said I would not be prepared to confirm a Compulsory Purchase Order unless I was satisfied, both in the special circumstances that the proposed acquisition would not be prejudicial from the point of view of planning, and that the terms of acquisition by a recognised company were such as would safeguard the financial position of the planning authority.

Mr. Donner: In the Second Reading Debate my right hon. Friend dealt with the question of utilising country houses and said:
I should add that in speaking of sites I by no means exclude the possibility of obtaining country mansions, which may well form a valuable nucleus around which hutments may be placed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1939; col. 2083, Vol. 345.]


I understand that a number of such houses are now in the market and that these might well be purchased for the objects of the Bill, and I would like to have an assurance that houses which are occupied will not be compulsorily purchased when unoccupied houses are available for this purpose.

Mr. Elliot: My hon. Friend is pressing me rather far. We all desire to be reasonable in the matter, and nobody wants to be expropriated from the house in which he is living. But to give an assurance that no house which is occupied can be compulsorily acquired would be going unreasonably far. The Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) has a large and noble house, the hospitality of which I have enjoyed, yet I would not undertake, even now, to say that if the national interest demanded it I would not acquire that house and property compulsorily for national purposes. It would be reasonable, if national necessity arose, that the Secretary of State for Scotland should turn me out of my house or turn anybody else out of his house. While we shall do our best to be reasonable, I think the assurance for which I am asked would go too far.

Viscountess Astor: I think that happened during the War, and there was no difficulty about it. They just said that they needed your house and they turned you out of it and they did not pay you either. But I do not think the hon. Gentleman need worry because most of these large houses are so expensive to run that the trouble is to get them used. Already, I may say, my house is requisitioned for 90 children inside and 90 children outside.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think the last remark of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner) fully justifies all that was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) a few minutes ago.

Mr. Elliot: That may be, but I have refused to give such an assurance and I am sure the hon. Member will not desire to press the matter further. There is no question of weakening upon it.

Mr. Ede: That is the characteristic attitude of Ministers. When they have spoken the matter is finished. I do not

intend to prevent the right hon. Gentleman getting to Wales if he wants to go. Indeed I would have been better pleased if he had gone earlier. But it is essential that the hon. Member for Basingstoke should realise that the claim which he has made, in connection with a matter of this kind, concerned with the possibility of war, is a claim which is bound to be resisted not merely by Ministers but by those people who would fill Ministerial positions far better than the present Ministers.

Mr. Donner: I have no intention of suggesting that houses which are now occupied should not be taken over by the Government in the event of a national emergency. But I was considering this as a peace-time Measure and I suggested that now, when so many houses are in the market, unoccupied premises should be considered first before we begin to consider taking over occupied houses.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Benn: I wish to enter a protest against this "I have to leave for Wales" attitude on the part of the Minister.

Mr. Elliot: I am prepared to spend the whole evening here if necessary. I am not asking the Committee to release me to go to Wales. I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to press any argument of that kind. I am here as the servant of the House of Commons, and my duty is to stay here as long as this Committee desires my presence here.

Mr. Benn: I meant nothing to the discredit of the right hon. Gentleman, but here is a Bill which has on it the names of two Secretaries of State and three Under-Secretaries and yet it is necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to stay here because none of his colleagues appear, in his judgment, to be competent to conduct the proceedings on the Bill. I enter my protest on that ground. No one desires to prevent the right hon. Gentleman discharging his public duties in the way that he can discharge them. But we do object to having a Debate which is kept constantly "on the run" so to speak, by the feeling that if we debate matters such as the proposal of the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Donner) we may in some way hinder the right hon. Gentleman's public work. It is an extraordinary position that with the names of two Secretaries of State and three Under-


Secretaries on the Bill we have to conduct this Debate under a sense of duress and haste. That is a protest which ought to be entered in the interests of free debate in Committee of the whole House.

CLAUSE 3—(Exemption from building restrictions.)

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no camp shall be constructed unless an architect experienced in planning work has been employed in connection with it.
The object of the Amendment is to make absolutely certain that a skilled architect shall be given full responsibility for the lay-out and design of every camp. I am sure that that will meet the general desire. It may be said that such is already the intention, but it seems to me that there is no harm in inserting a provision of this kind in the Measure. The Minister, himself, I am sure understands the importance of this proposal and perhaps he will give the Committee the benefit of his views upon it.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: The question raised by the Amendment has been, to some extent at any rate, debated already and I have said that I did not think it necessary that further persons should now be added to the board. I further pointed out that in the department we have architects and persons who are expert in planning and that the proposed review would take place in circumstances in which full use would be made of this knowledge and experience.

Mr. Mander: Perhaps I have not made the position clear. I have not in mind what the Minister has just referred to. I am dealing here with a smaller localised problem. I propose that wherever a camp is being set up on a particular site, by direction of the company, there shall be employed a qualified architect. I am not thinking of super-architects on the board but of an architect on the spot.

Mr. Elliot: I can clear that point up at once. I was about to say that the company have already been in consultation with the Royal Institute of British

Architects and have been furnished with a panel of 40 or 50 architects whom the Institute consider peculiarly suitable for this work, and they propose to select from that panel individual architects in all cases to plan and supervise the construction of the camps.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Marshall: I hope the right hon. Gentleman will watch this matter carefully. During the last War, huts were built in some of our large industrial centres and we have not got rid of them yet. They are most unsightly and are or have been in many cases rat-infested and vermin-infested. If these new camps are to be anything like those, the whole project will be condemned. These camps will naturally be situated in places where people are trying to preserve the amenities of the countryside and I can imagine that an ill-designed camp would destroy the amenities which we have been trying to preserve for several years past by means of "green belts" and in other ways. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will watch this question of amenities very carefully.

Mr. Elliot: It is for that reason that we have made a specific arrangement for the services in every case of one of a panel of architects who are specially experienced in this matter.

Mr. Mander: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Annesley Somerville: On a point of Order. The Amendment in my name, in page 3, line 32, has not been called. I suppose the reason is that the Minister has practically accepted it inasmuch as he has put an Amendment on the Paper covering it. I should like to thank the Minister for having recognised the very reasonable wishes of the local authorities.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Peake): The hon. Member's surmise is correct. His Amendment is covered by a later Amendment on the Paper in the name of the Minister.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 3, line 41, at the end, to add:
Provided that this Subsection shall cease to have effect when such land ceases to be used for such purposes.


Sub-section (2) of this Clause, as it stands without my Amendment, seems to exempt from the Town and Country-Planning Acts for ever any site occupied under this Bill, except in so far as the Minister may direct. The object of my Amendment is to make it certain that if at any time a site should cease to be used for the purposes of the Bill, it shall automatically revert to the original zoning under the planning scheme.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am in entire agreement with the purpose of this Amendment, and I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.

Mr. Mander: I want to say exactly the same.

Mr. Bernays: I am glad to see this unanimity, which is in contrast to my experience earlier in the Debate. I am happy to be able to say that the Government recognise that there is some ambiguity here, and we are grateful to my hon. Friend for having called attention to it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 41, at the end, add:
(3) A recognised company who submit any plans and specifications to the Minister for his approval under Sub-section (1) of this Section shall transmit copies thereof to the council of the borough or urban or rural district, and to the planning authority, if any, for the area, in which the site of the proposed buildings, erections or excavations is situate, and the Minister, before giving his approval, shall take into consideration any representations which may be made to him by that council or authority within fourteen days after the receipt by them of the copies of the plans and specifications.
In this Subsection the expression planning authority in relation to any land subject to such a scheme as is mentioned in the last preceding Subsection, or to a resolution to prepare or adopt such a scheme, means the authority having power to control the development or interim development of that land."—[Mr. Elliot.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.17 p.m.

Wing-Commander James: On the Second Reading of the Bill the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) and others emphasised that in their view it was necessary that these camps should be camouflaged against air attack. I wish to express exactly the contrary view. I

believe that nothing would be worse than that these camps should be concealed. Indeed, I think that their positions should be publicly announced and that they should be clearly marked. Their positions should be recorded and advertised, and every step should be taken to make it plain that they are civilian refuge camps, that they have no possible military objective, and that they should be exempted as targets for air bombardment. In war there will be all over the country a large number of military objectives which it will be desirable to conceal and which will have to be camouflaged. It seems to me, basing my views on the experience of the last War, that concealment of these camps will be extremely difficult any way, that it can hardly be efficient, and that if attempted it may provide the enemy with some form of excuse for mistakes. The experience of the last War was that there was no case of deliberate bombing of a hospital, although military rest camps were bombed. In another place recently the Noble Lord, who during the War was chief of the Air Staff in France, made some reference to this.
In 1918 I had occasion to visit the 15th Division and the general told me that a hospital nearby had been several times bombed, and asked me what I thought about it. He said it was not marked, and I suggested that a large red cross should be put on it. That was done and the hospital was never bombed again. For a long time in the last War I was stationed at the aerodrome in Abbe Ele. Nearby on the main line railway there were some large hospitals, and although that area was heavily bombed the hospitals were never once touched. There was an occasion when the Germans bombed a hospital at Etaples. It happened that at that time I was at Flying Corps headquarters in France, and we sent out in aeroplanes next morning to photograph the bombed hospital because we thought a gross outrage had been committed which should be advertised to the world. When we developed the photographs we found it was not possible to pick out one negative which did not also cover a neighbouring dump across the railway embankment. That dump was a perfectly legitimate target.
I am certain that it would not be desirable to attempt to camouflage these


camps. Seaside resorts might be advertised as being entirely reserved for this purpose and as having no military objective at all. Possibly in time of war we might have neutral observers near the camps to see that these advertised positions were not bombed. I beg the Minister to realise the extraordinary difficulty of effective camouflage. These camps, we hope, will become large holiday centres in peace-time, and effectively to conceal such large concentrations will be extremely difficult. I am convinced it would be far more effective to make no effort to conceal them but, indeed, to expose them and to advertise their location. To those who would say, with every reason, that prospective opponents would be ruthless, I would say that in a war military objectives would be plentiful and it would not be a sound policy, from the lowest point of view, to attack purely non-military objectives. It is sometimes over looked that, especially in the last few weeks, our own Air Force has become so enormously more powerful—

The Temporary Chairman: I have allowed the hon. and gallant Member to deal with the question of camouflage, but I do not think we can go into the question of the comparative size of Air Forces.

Wing-Commander James: I apologise; I was going rather wide of the question. I only want to express the hope that no camouflage of any sort will be attempted.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Price: The hon. and gallant Member for Wellingborough (Wing-Commander James) shows a confidence in the Dictators, if they ever should attack this country, which other Members of the Committee are not likely to share. Why are we going in for all these preparations for air-raid precautions to defend the civil population gainst air attack if we are to assume that all attacks will be on military objectives alone? I do not think the Government are taking that view. I feel that it is very necessary to consider whether these camps should not be camouflaged. If there is a large-scale evacuation of children and others from industrial centres to rural areas, and some of them go into camps, I can conceive that it may be regarded as a quite legitimate military operation to bomb the civil population in the new centres. It was

done in Spain. The hon. and gallant Member apparently can only see events in the civil war in Spain from the point of view of General Franco's side. If he had studied that war reasonably and objectively he would have known that deliberate attempts were made all through to put pressure upon the civil population. The same thing might happen here, and civil camps of this kind might quite well become military objectives, and I hope the Committee will not agree that camouflage is unnecessary.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: The hon. and gallant Member has brought forward two arguments in support of his contention. The first is the argument that a reasonable enemy conducting air warfare will have many more important objects than the civil population with which to deal, and would confine his attentions to places where he would be likely to find military objectives to destroy. The second argument is the technical one that it would be difficult to camouflage these camps. I agree with the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) in. thinking that the hon. and gallant Member takes too optimistic a view of those who are committing aggression throughout the world at the present time. There have been three wars recently—in Abyssinia, in Spain and in China—and I suggest with great confidence that in no one of those wars have the desires of the hon. and gallant Member been carried out. If he had had an opportunity of seeing a film, which many of us saw, of the war in Abyssinia, he would have seen aircraft coming low down to attack a British hospital in open country—coming down to within a few hundred feet and bombing it to pieces. The same experience befell every foreign hospital which was on the Abyssinian side. In China the weapon of terror from the air has been used against the civilian population; and, indeed, it is only a few months since Signor Mussolini made a speech in which he said that, founding himself upon the experience of the wars in Spain and Abyssinia, he could now declare that the purpose of the Italian Air Force in a new war would be to win the war by destroying the morale of the civil population.
It would be a simple matter to fly down and machine-gun these camps, and I am certain that it is desirable to have them


camouflaged and provided with trench shelters. On the technical aspects of camouflage I do not profess to have an opinion, except to say that many such camps were camouflaged in the last War, and, as I understand it, with more or less satisfactory results. In any case the subject is one to which the Government should give close attention and consult their experts on how these camps can be camouflaged, if it can be done effectively. I could not accept the implied argument of the hon. and gallant Member that if these camps were camouflaged it would be in some mysterious way at the expense of the camouflage of military objectives. The fact that you camouflage one object does not mean that other camouflaged objects become more visible.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) that we cannot look for anything other than sheer terrorism from those who are likely to attack this country. They will want to create the maximum amount of human suffering and fear among the people, and we do not want these camps to become a number of Guernicas scattered about the country. Therefore, I hope that the Government will consider most seriously the camouflaging of these camps and arranging them in such a way that they are disguised from aircraft, as I believe can be done.

CLAUSE 4 —(Powers of Unemployment Assistance Board to make arrangements with recognised companies as to employment.)

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Viant: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the end, to add:
(2) Any agreement with a recognised company in pursuance of this Section shall be subject to a condition that the nature of the work to be performed shall not prejudice the working conditions recognised between employers and employed in the trades concerned in the construction or maintenance of the camps.
This Clause gives certain exceptional powers to these companies to enter into arrangements with the Unemployment Assistance Board under which unemployed men may be taken into the employ of the contractors who are constructing these camps; and they will be taken into

that employment under exceptional circumstances. On the Second Reading of the Bill we were given to understand that the Clause had been included in the Bill for the specific purpose of enabling a number of men who had been unemployed for a considerable time to be taken into employment and thereby recondition, as it were. There was considerable apprehension, in the building trade especially, as to what the effect of this action might be. At present there are some 200,000 building trade operatives out of work, and they rather fear that the placing of men into employment by the Unemployment Assistance Board in this way may be the means of lowering the standards of building trade operatives. This Amendment is moved in an endeavour to ensure that this shall not happen, in short, that only trade union hours and wages shall obtain in this work. We should like the Minister to accept the Amendment, because if those words were added to the Clause it would remove any apprehensions. The fact that such apprehensions do exist must be known to the Minister, and I ask that the Amendment shall be accepted.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Elliot: The Government have every sympathy with the object of the Amendment, and I think we shall be able to meet the hon. Member by the assurances which I shall give. An assurance was asked for earlier by the hon. Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee).

Mr. Viant: I raised the point on Second Reading, and I do not feel that the assurances then given were such as we could accept.

Mr. Elliot: I see, but I take the further point which the hon. Member for West Walthamstow raised, along I think similar lines to those of the hon. Member. He was very anxious that no reduction of standards should take place and he specifically asked for an assurance as to the Fair Wages Clause. I did not give that assurance on the Second Reading and perhaps it is for that reason that the hon. Member has felt some apprehension.
I can give the assurance in the most categorical form that any agreement under Clause 4 would require to provide for a Fair Wages Clause; that is to say, the agreement would by law be required to provide for the rate of wages customary in the district. That is the first point, as to the rate of wages. The second point


concerned the fear that, in spite of all that, certain inroads might be made upon the labour organisations by people being unfairly brought in. I think that I can give an assurance also that it would be one of the conditions of the agreement between the Government and the recognised company that before the company entered into any agreement with the Unemployment Assistance Board it would have to consult the building trade, both the organised employers and organised labour. I think my assurances on those two points should satisfy the hon. Member.

Mr. Viant: In view of the Minister's assurances and the publicity which they have received, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Application of Act to Scotland.)

8.37 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, after "1845," to insert:
for any reference to the council of a borough or urban or rural district, there shall be substituted a reference to the council of a county or a burgh.
This Amendment is necessary only to apply to Scotland that new Sub-section to Clause 3 which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bilston (Mr. Hannah) put forward, and it is in place of the proposal on the Paper in their name.

Amendment agreed to.

8.38 p.m.

Further Amendments made:

In page 5, leave out line 21, and insert "Subsections (2) and (3) thereof the following Sub-sections."

In line 35, leave out "a," and insert "the."

In page 6, line 5, at the end, insert:
(3) In its application to a recognised company who make under this Section a compulsory purchase order paragraph 4 of Part 1 of the Third Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1932, shall have effect as if it provided that the notice required by sub-paragraph (a) of that para-

graph to be published in a local newspaper shall also be served on the council of any county or burgh in which any land comprised in the order is situate."—[Mr. Wedderburn.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Annual reports to be made by a recognised company.)

A recognised company shall each year, prepare and submit to the appropriate Minister an annual report on their operations in that year; and the Minister, upon receiving any report submitted to him under this Section, shall lay copies of the report before Parliament. —[Mr. Noel-Baker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.41 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
As on Second Reading and again this afternoon, I have explained the purpose of this Clause, and as the Minister of Health has told the Committee that he intends to accept it on behalf ox the Government, I think I may spare the Committee any further speech on the subject.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.— (Use of camps)

The use of the camps provided under the provisions of this Act shall be confined to the following purposes only, that is to say:

(a) camp schemes for pupils in State-aided schools in consultation with the appropriate education authorities;
(b) schemes for the evacuation of the civil population undertaken in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Defence Act, 1939. —[Mr. R. Robinson.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This manuscript new Clause is almost identical with an Amendment which I wished to move to Clause 1, but in accordance with the wishes of the Chair I am moving it in this form. My purpose is entirely friendly to the Bill and to the Government. Indeed, all I wish to do is to make the terms of the Bill as drafted agree with the definite statement set out in the explanatory memorandum that


the camps will be available as school camps in peace-time and for the accommodation of persons moving from evacuation areas in the event of war.
Having read the explanatory memorandum and turned my attention to the Bill, I was rather surprised to find that that limitation did not appear in the Bill, and I was forced to the conclusion that it must have been left out by mistake since special attention had been called to the purposes of the camps in the explanatory memorandum. The question was raised on the Second Reading by myself and others, but when the Undersecretary of State for Scotland replied he did not specifically answer the point. If these camps are intended for other purposes I feel that the Under-Secretary would have felt compelled to tell the House that that was the case. We have had a number of assurances at Question Time and in Debate, and I feel that the wisest thing would be to make it perfectly clear that the camps are not to be competitive with the holiday industry in this country.
I am proposing this new Clause to make certain that adequate protection is given to stabilised industries against Government competition. We approve of the dual purpose for which the camps are being set up, but I would not approve of a camp being used in order to cater for families on holiday. I submit that the resorts of this country already offer adequate accommodation for whatever demands may be made by workers who are receiving holidays with pay. I have been for some years privileged to live in a health resort and I know from my experience that the houses in many towns are almost empty in May, June, part of July and most of September. If only we could get greater assistance from the Government, more especially from the Board of Education, to arrange for a spread-over of holidays, there would be no need to consider using these camps to cater for holidays. Questions have been raised with regard to the prices of accommodation, but, if it is possible to use the available accommodation throughout the summer months, the price factor will become much easier, because those who own those places will not be compelled to earn a year's livelihood in a few weeks. I appeal to the Government to make it clear that they will allow the

normal expansion of a very healthy industry to try to meet the new conditions resulting from holidays with pay, and to give the industry a chance, when I feel certain it will justify itself.
It should be a matter of fundamental principle with Members on this side to see that Government competition does not enter into this industry. Government competition is directly contrary to the fundamental principles on which our party, and, through it, the Government, have acted hitherto. I am aware that subsidised Government competition would be welcomed and approved by hon. Members opposite, but I feel that it is our duty on this side to take a very firm stand against any Government competition in our industries. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some reassurance. If possible, I should like to see a Clause inserted in the Bill, because, while the present Minister of Health and Parliamentary Secretary may be whole heartedly with us, they will not necessarily always be holding the same offices that they hold to-day, and I do not want to leave the door open to their successors, whoever they may be, to introduce this subsidised competition without again coming to the House of Commons and asking permission to do so for a specific purpose. There has been a certain amount of confusion, the President of the Board of Education, a member of the Cabinet, speaking in another place, has said that he would like to see these camps used for purposes far beyond those which are visualised in this Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I take it that those cheers indicate the approval of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Their position, at least, is clear—

Mr. Mander: Does the hon. Member suggest that, in an absolutely united Government, a Minister speaking in another place is not expressing the views of the whole of His Majesty's Ministers?

Mr. Robinson: I feel certain that the hon. Member, as usual, will draw his own conclusions about everything the Government do, and, therefore, whatever I might say would make very little difference. As I was saying, there has been some confusion on this question, and I would like it set right. On behalf of those with whom I am associated, I would say to the Parliamentary Secretary that we are not wedded to the particular form of


words in this Clause as we have drafted it. If he can help us to find some words which will meet the case and fit in with the terms of the Explanatory Memorandum, we shall be only too glad to co-operate with him.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I hope the Government are going to adhere to their previous attitude and reject this Clause. On the Second Reading, the Minister of Health said he had by no means ruled out the idea of camps for adult holiday-makers, and he went on to say that the companies under the present Bill would be able to make arrangements for the use of these camps at holiday times, either by juvenile organisations or, indeed, by holiday-makers of any kind. I hope that the Government are not only going to allow the companies to use their camps for adult holiday-makers, but are going to make camps for adult holiday-makers. The hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) spoke of the health resort where he has the advantage of living, and said that during many months of the year the houses there are empty. Why are they empty? For two reasons—first, because our holidays are not staggered in accordance with a reasonable plan, a difficulty which I hope, by Government and other action, may soon be remedied; and, secondly, because many people cannot afford to pay the prices which are charged.

Mr. Robinson: I agree with the hon. Member in regard to the staggering of holidays, but the question of price, which is very important, is being met in two ways. In the first place, large numbers of people are for the first time having holidays with pay; and, secondly, if the holidays are staggered, it will, as I explained earlier, enable the accommodation to be spread over a longer period, so that the people who own these houses will not have to make their whole livelihood in one month of the year. That will make the price question very much easier.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I agree that a great number of people are going to have holidays with pay, but we do not know what the pay is going to be. We do not know whether it is going to be in the full normal rate of wages, and I understand there is no guarantee on that point; but, supposing that it is, how many of these people

can afford to pay the rates charged by these holiday houses and other enterprises? On the Second Reading the hon. Member said that the commercial camps about the country—I believe he has some in his constituency—are used by the lower-paid workers, for whom they cater. I have examined the rates charged at almost all the commercial camps in the country, and they vary from about 35s. a week up to £3 10s. How is a man receiving 35s. a week for his labour to take his family away and pay charges like that? The thing is grotesque. We argue that the Government ought to start holiday camps of their own, on a non-profit making basis, where it would be possible to charge rates that these people can pay. Under the scheme as it stands, the Government are hoping that the charge to local education authorities for children will be somewhere about 13s. to 15s. a week. If that charge can be made for children, it ought to be possible to take adults at 21s., or a maximum of 25s. I believe that the Lambeth Borough Council, who are making a municipal camp of their own, hope to be able to carry their scheme through with such success that they will be able to provide holiday accommodation for adults for 25s. a week, with a correspondingly lower charge for children.

Mr. Robinson: Would the hon. Member help me by a further expression of his opinion? Would he allow everyone to go to these camps, or would he limit them to the lower-paid workers?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think it is almost certain that the selection of those who want to use the camps will be made by those who use them—that, in other words, people who can afford a higher standard of luxury than is provided by the camps will go elsewhere. But if some people with a little more money want to go to these camps, I would not impose a means test, but would let them go, considering that it was a good democratic experiment which the Government were well justified in trying. I think the Committee are aware that a great number of new people will come into the scheme of holidays with pay. There are still 12,000,000 workers who do not get what should be the right of every Englishman—an annual holiday with pay while he is away. If anything like that scale of expansion is required in the holiday industry, there will be no


question of competition with existing facilities, nor, I think, of competition in any way, because the prices charged are not prices which will be possible for these people. On these grounds it is desirable that the Government should carry through schemes for adult holiday camps, and I hope they will reject the Clause.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) has made an appeal for State-subsidised competition in establishing holiday camps which will take anyone and everyone. That appeals to hon. Members opposite, but, as I have nine holiday camps in my constituency, including one belonging to the Workers' Travel Association, I feel that the point of view of these holiday camps should be put before the Committee. The holiday camps feel that they are not having a fair deal. In the Explanatory Memorandum it was explained for what the camps were intended, but that explanation is not in accordance with the Bill.
Hon. Members should be clear what this holiday camp industry is, what it has set out to do, and what it has achieved. It was commenced some 30 years ago, and at present there are 85 camps, which take 35,000 to 40,000 people. Probably in the course of one year they take some 300,000 people for holidays during the summer months. That involves an expenditure of well over £2,000,000. It is a new industry, and it is constantly changing. The camps are constantly being improved by the addition of new comforts, new amenities, and new methods giving better types of building. There is this competition of private enterprise, all making for greater comfort, greater amenities and often reduced prices. I suggest that if you force against that industry State-aided competition, you will check that spirit of enterprise, that tremendous move to improve, that is going on to-day, and you may place everything under the rather deadening hand of the State.
These camps perform a very great national service. They provide a very healthy and happy holiday at very moderate prices. The hon. Member for Derby said that the prices were too high. I think the Workers' Travel Association camp in my constituency charges 35s. a week, absolutely inclusive, but of the other camps most of them, I think, charge

40s. a week in June and July, and in the height of the summer 45s. a week. That is absolutely inclusive of entertainments, dances, games and everything else, and in many cases it includes transport from the people's homes.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am not complaining that these people are not doing their best from their point of view; I have no doubt many of them are. But my point is that there are millions of workers who cannot now, and will not within any measurable time, be able to pay 35s. a week.

Mr. Loftus: If that is so, and if workers cannot pay 35s, a week for a fortnight's holiday, it is in the nature of a national reproach. The people who have developed these camps, who have given so many facilities for lower-paid people, will be ill-requited if they are told that subsidies are to be given from State money to their competitors, to destroy a business which has been a great national asset. A great misapprehension has arisen out of the invention of the words "seaside landlady." Whenever those words are mentioned they provoke a smile, much in the same way as the term "mother-in-law." That is one of the ancient jokes. But many seaside landladies are very excellent women. In Suffolk many of them are wives of working-class men and they earn extra money in that way.
As regards the wording of the proposed new Clause, I am not satisfied. I think it should clearly indicate that we propose that the Clause should apply only in peace time. In addition, for the two reasons set out in the Clause, I think these State-built camps could, and should, be used for other purposes. I suggest, for instance, that they should be used as training camps for the Army, Territorial Force or cadets. I would be quite ready to incorporate that in the Clause. Also I suggest that they should be used for the unemployed. They would be of great value for getting the unemployed from some desperately depressed area away with their families for a complete change of scene. That might have an astonishing tonic effect. The third thing for which I would like these State-subsidised camps to be used is for the benefit of any recognised and established welfare society, such as the Church Army or the Boy Scouts.
I protest against the idea put forward by the hon. Member for Derby, that these State-subsidised camps should take all and sundry, regardless of income, and enter into competition with these camps which have been built up by the enterprise and energy of the initiators. There is a pledge given in the Explanatory Memorandum, which is not carried out. There should be something embodied in the Bill putting some restriction on the use of these camps. Unless that is done, I hope my hon. Friend will carry this Clause to a Division.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Bernays: I fully appreciate the anxieties in the minds of my hon. Friends the Members for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) and Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson). They represent two great holiday localities, and they are naturally anxious that the interests of their constituents should not be prejudiced. I will give this assurance, that, of course, the Government have no desire or intention whatever of subsidising competition with the holiday industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool said, "Give the holiday industry a chance." He will agree that it is receiving a very substantial chance, from which we hope that it will have a great fillip, through the Holidays with Pay Act, which we hope will come into operation this summer. But I would ask him to direct his mind to this consideration. If his Amendment were carried it might well be that we should find ourselves debarred in certain instances by a statutory prohibition from the use of these camps.
We do not yet know the extent to which the education authorities will make use of these camps. There may be hesitation or delays in the initial stages, and if the Amendment were carried and the applications from the education authorities were perhaps insufficient, then the camps for the use of which there had been no application from the education authorities would of necessity stand empty because of the statutory prohibition contained in the Amendment. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that it really is not common sense that, while there were on the company's books applications of which we should all approve, there should be some statutory bar against admission to these camps. There is the period of the school holidays to be considered. The practice differs among some education

authorities, but the majority of them do not make provision for holiday camps in times of holidays.
Therefore, if the Amendment were carried, there might well be a blank period during which these camps were not used. That would be a disadvantage from the point of view of the national finances of these camps, for we look to long periods of use in order to reduce the overhead charges. For instance, the overhead charges for a kitchen stove, obviously, would be proportionately less if a camp were used for 40 weeks instead of for 20 weeks. In any case, I think that my hon. Friends will agree that it is not really sufficient to say that a boy shall be able to use these camps interminably as a member of a State school, but that if he wants to go there as a member of a troop of Boy Scouts he shall be debarred from doing so by a statutory enactment. That is what would happen if my hon. Friend's Amendment were carried.

Mr. Loftus: We should be only too willing to accept Amendments increasing the use of these camps by the Boy Scouts, the Church Army or any kind of national welfare association, and by the unemployed.

Mr. Bernays: Though I have no doubt that my hon. Friend is very sincere in his desire, that desire is not contained in the Clause.

Mr. Robinson: I made the point that we were not wedded to the particular set of words. I appreciate my hon. Friend's meeting of our case as a result of special pleading, and we shall be most willing to talk to him in order to obtain a more general Clause if necessary. Perhaps on the Report stage we can meet the points which he has made.

Mr. Bernays: I really think that it is not possible to devise suitable words because really we differ on something more important than that. My hon. Friends want to limit the use of these camps and to lay down a statutory limitation. A troop of Boy Scouts, whom, I am sure, my hon. Friends would be most anxious to assist, if they applied for the use of one of these camps would find, under this proposed new Clause, a statutory limitation preventing them from using the camp. I fully agree with what my hon. Friends have said with regard to the fact that these camps ought to be available


only for those who really need them. There are two safeguards against abuse and against these camps seriously competing with the holiday resorts. These camps are, after all, likely to be of a pretty rough-and-ready character. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If we were offered a fortnight in one of these camps or a fortnight at Blackpool, I believe that most of us would choose Blackpool—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—or, if you like, some other resort. These camps cannot be said to compete in amenities either with the ordinary boarding houses or the great commercial holiday camps, which are of a far more elaborate character.
There is the second safeguard that it will always be open to the companies to refuse an application for a camp to any organisation that in their opinion can pay the full economic rate. It is always possible to raise these matters in the House on the Estimates or by questions to my right hon. Friend. If the House votes a substantial sum of money, hon. Members can always claim an investigation into how the money is spent. But I do not really think that this Bill will adversely affect the holiday resorts. They will cater for a section of the community who, as Sir Ronald Davison pointed out in a recent article in the "Times," will not be able to pay the ordinary holiday rates in operation at the commercial camps or the boarding houses. I would invite the consideration of my hon. Friends to the fact that these camps will popularise the use of fresh air and holiday resorts, and that boys will learn at an early age how pleasant it is to get into the country. They will acquire a holiday habit so that, when they reach years of discretion and are earning wages or salaries, they will avail themselves of the opportunity of spending holidays at Blackpool and Lowestoft, and other resorts.
In this connection it is not inappropriate to use the analogy of the provision of milk in schools. Boys and girls are acquiring a taste for milk, and although they receive milk at cheap rates in the schools, when they go out into the world and into the factories an increasing number of men and women will in fact drink milk, although they will have to pay the ordinary rates for it. I argue from this that, by encouraging holidays and giving

opportunities to new sections of the community to enjoy holiday camps, we shall encourage the holiday habit among them when they grow up. I hope that I have convinced hon. Members that there is nothing in the Bill which will adversely affect holiday resorts.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I am a little surprised at the suggestion of the hon. Member that these are to be rough-and-ready camps. It has been represented to us that they will be composed of permanent buildings and will have all the amenities and opportunities for recreation and that they could be readily transformed, in the case of evacuation, for a much larger population. They must, therefore, be supplied with all the domestic and social needs on which good health and a comfortable life depend.

Mr. Bernays: I do not want the hon. Member to misunderstand me. When I used the words "rough-and-ready," I merely meant that they would not be furnished like boarding houses in places like Blackpool and other holiday resorts.

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. Member also made the further point that so far as family holidays are concerned the camp would be available only during the peak period of the holiday season or in the eventuality of the camps not getting sufficient bookings from schools and other institutions for which they are intended. I should like to urge that experimental camps should be created for family holidays. I am very much opposed to the proposal which is now put forward. I do not think that camps which are of a dormitory type for the use of school children can be readily transformed for family holiday use. Therefore, I hope that the company which will be formed will construct a number of camps for the use of those persons who are getting holidays with pay for the first time. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), who suggested that it was a reprehensible thing that the dead hand of the State should come into this business. It seemed to me a wonderful thing that the dead hand of the State can work such havoc with the business which he represents.

Mr. Loftus: I said that at the present time there is an extraordinary boom going on in these camps and that if the State came in and subsidised camps—I


do not think I used the words "the dead hand of the State"—it would have a deadening effect on this movement.

Mr. Creech Jones: The fear of the hon. Member is that State competition would have the effect of killing the industry rather than of stimulating it, by providing a more reasonable type of holiday than is provided at the present time. The hon. Member referred to the fact that the association with which I am acquainted is able to provide family holidays during part of the year at 35s. per week. While during certain parts of the year that may be an economic price, all experience indicates clearly that it is impossible to get a price lower than 35s. and, therefore, a scheme such as this is welcome because it will be possible to bring holidays within the reach of the lower strata of the public who are unable, owing to their limited incomes, to get holidays at the present time. Therefore as one who is interested in the creation of popular holidays I welcome most emphatically some real effort by the State to create those ordinary facilities which can only be provided by such a scheme as this. There are millions of working people on the lower rung of income who are getting holidays with pay for the first time, and if a few experimental camps could be created it would give that class of persons an opportunity of enjoying a holiday which otherwise would be completely barred to them. Such camps would not necessarily compete with existing camps and holiday seaside resorts.
There is a further consideration which should be borne in mind. The more you can get people to take holidays the more you stimulate the holiday habit, and you go on widening the demand for holiday facilities. It is a short-sighted argument to suggest that, because the State is coming in with a special type of provision in order to meet the needs of a class of people who are at present debarred from holidays, you are therefore going to prejudice the business of boarding houses and other camps. So far as seaside resorts are concerned this scheme attempts to create a completely different type of holidays, a type of holidays which is very much in demand because of its healthfulness and because it creates a social habit and a social method of enjoyment which the ordinary seaside

resort does not always provide, certainly not so far as the ordinary boarding house is concerned which has to be used by the poorer type of worker. Therefore, not only on the ground that you are creating cheap facilities but because you are creating social and healthful facilities, I suggest that such an arrangement as this should have the support of the Committee.
I put this point of view as one who, in his own personal arrangements, if the arguments of the Mover of the Amendment were sound, would be adversely affected by the Bill. But it is not because one is meeting social needs that I hope the Amendment will be resisted and that this kind of restriction will not be imposed. There are other arguments that I should like to use. I am anxious to see an extension of the holiday industry, and I believe these camps will have an enormously stimulating effect, both in regard to the seaside resorts and the existing holiday camps. Therefore, I hope the Minister will go a little further than he has announced, and that he will deliberately encourage the companies that are being created themselves to embark on the experiment of camps to provide family holidays, and that they will not be just crude, rough-and-ready affairs, but will provide all the real holiday amenities which even the lowest paid workers are entitled to enjoy, that they will not be just school camps used in the peak season, but camps deliberately created for this particular purpose. I hope the Committee will resist the Amendment.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. Spens: In my Division C have a stretch of many miles of shore in the South of England. Along that shore we have holiday camps of every sort and kind, but they divide themselves into two main types—those confined entirely to adults and those confined entirely to children during their holidays. The problems that arise for the people who own and manage the camps under the Bill are, in my view, quite separate and different. As regards the children's holiday camps, I am quite satisfied that, with the number of new camps that are proposed under the Bill, if they were used solely for children, there are so far more children who could be given camp holidays than there would be camps, that no sort of competition whatever would


arise from the use of these camps for children during the holidays. As far as there is any suggestion that the Bill is going to do any injury to those who own and manage children's holiday camps at present, I cannot bring myself to believe it. On the other hand, I think the position of those who own and run holiday camps simply for adults is quite different if the intention of the Bill is that these camps that are being erected are, or may be used, for adults. The camps for adults which at present exist have involved the expenditure of a very great deal of capital. Every owner of camps certainly in my area, makes them as attractive as he possibly can to his clients On the South Coast we get people from all over the kingdom, from the middle of April to the middle of October. The owners have spent a very great deal of money in advertising, and so forth. Their price varies at different seasons from 35s. up to £2 10s. a week, or something of that sort.
What is going to happen if hon. Members opposite desire that these camps should be used for adults? First of all, they are going to deprive immense numbers of children of their use. It is suggested that they should be used for adults because certain sections of the working classes who cannot afford to pay the 35s. or 45s. will be able to go to these camps. Do hon. Members really imagine that the boards of management of these camps are going to run them under the Bill as semi-charitable institutions? Of course they are not. They are going to charge the highest prices they can get, and the Government are going to try to get back the money they have spent on them. The idea that the boards of management will run the camps not in competition with the prices of the seaside camps is wholly misconceived. If the camps are to be used for adults at all/they will come into direct competition with existing seaside camps, a movement which has grown in the last 30 years, and has done immense good to innumerable sections of our population. It is a movement that we want to encourage, and not to discourage. By urging that these camps should be used for adults, you are not only depriving children of the benefits that they ought to get out of them, but you are discouraging those at present in the seaside camp movement from spending another penny in producing other camps.
At the moment, owing to the comparatively small number of camps for which the Bill provides, the fears of existing owners are exaggerated, but that is not the point. Hon. Members opposite complain that this is a small Measure and ask how many more camps are to be produced in the years to come. They look on this as the beginning of a great Government subsidised camp movement. That is why the interests of those who have put millions of money into the holiday camp movement ought to be protected now. The fears of these people, if the movement never went any further than what is contained in the Bill, would not be realised, but if, as I believe with hon. Members opposite, this is only a start, and we shall see camps all over the country to a very much larger extent than those authorised by the Bill, if you want private industry to go on in competition with a Government subsidised movement, you ought to protect private industry and encourage it to go on with the good work it is doing. You can do that with benefit to the children by restricting the use of the camps to children. It is inaccurate to say that they are used only for children during certain weeks in the summer. My experience is that they are used from the moment they are opened until the moment they are closed, in October, and there is no difficulty in getting school after school to go to them. If you only confined the use of the camps to children during the months they are available, you would be doing a very good work for the children and you would be encouraging private owners to go along side by side with the State subsidised enterprise and, I believe, they would then go on with their work. But if you pass the Bill in the form in which it is, in view of the prophecies of the party opposite, which I share, I believe you will immediately close down all further private enterprise in the movement. I beg the Under-Secretary to put in something to the effect of this new Clause.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). The hon. and learned Member waxed wrath about the subsidy for these camps, but I have never seen him froth at the mouth when it was a question of a subsidy for the farmers. When the tramp shipping


subsidy was debated a few years ago, he went into the Division Lobby in favour of it. I would like to give him a little of my experience about this holiday business. I worked for 43 years and never had a half-day's holiday with pay until I came to the House, and when I got my holidays with pay, I enjoyed them. I want to support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker). We are talking about holidays with pay—

The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Clifton Brown): I must correct the hon. Member. We are talking about the use of the camps.

Mr. Griffiths: I quite agree, Colonel Clifton Brown, and if you had let me alone, I should have been in the camp in half a minute. I do not think the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Robinson) is so much enamoured of these camps around Blackpool. He is more disturbed and perplexed about the boarding-house keepers, and they are the people for whom he speaks all the time. He wishes that the camps around Blackpool were wiped out altogether.

Mr. Robinson: May I point out that the hon. Member is not entitled to speak for me? I was speaking for the whole of the holiday industry.

Mr. Griffiths: If the hon. Member was speaking for the whole of the holiday industry, he did not speak very clearly. Although hundreds of thousands of people are receiving holidays with pay at the present time, the payment which they get for holidays is not sufficient to take a man, his wife and family to a holiday camp at 35s. for each. Take a miner, his wife and three youngsters—70s. a week for him and his wife. Let us consider this matter of going away for holidays from the standpoint of the miners. Under the Yorkshire miners' holiday agreement, at the present time, if a chap is late he is fined half-a-crown. It is taken off his £3. Last year some of our chaps had only three days' holiday, and the pay was 30s., although some of them, when they went to draw their holiday pay, received only 17s. 6d., because they were fined 12s. 6d. for getting to work late at different times. Some of them, as a result of half-a-crown fines, lost anything up to 22s. 6d. How are such people to be able

to go to the camps belonging to the hon. and learned Member for Ashford? How are they to go to the camps at Lowestoft? They have not enough money even to pay the railway fare.

Mr. Spens: I have been looking at these camps, and I assure the hon. Member that people come in large numbers even from his county.

Mr. Griffiths: They do go, but they are the deputies and managers and under-managers—the men who have regular wages. I am pleased in a sense that the Parliamentary Secretary has stood up to the two hon. Members. It took him a good long while before he told them straight that he was not prepared to accept this new Clause. If they press the matter to a Division, I hope that they will be the tellers, and that there will be nobody to vote with them.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The hon. Members who have put down this new Clause seem entirely to have ignored the purpose for which the Camps Bill was introduced by the Government. That purpose was the general advancement and improvement of the community, in addition to evacuation in time of war. Certainly, in the course of time, with changes of government, the camps will be used for any purpose which the public may desire. Hon. Members naturally have in mind holidays with pay. To have holidays with pay and not to make sufficient provision to enable families or individuals to go away on holiday, would be a sheer absurdity. Therefore, the Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear that by this subsidised scheme families and individuals will be able to take advantage of these camp holidays. The lower-paid section of the community is quite incapable, without financial assistance, of having the holidays which have been placed within their grasp. There are many hon. Members who have subscribed to institutions the express objects of which are to enable the lower-paid section of the community occasionally to enjoy such holidays.
It seems remarkable that there should be hon. Members standing up for what is a purely speculative enterprise and requesting the Government to take steps to protect the interests of that enterprise. Here we have an admission that the private concerns have been established for


private profit; the more successful they are, the greater the profit earned; and I am certain that it is only an incidental part of the business of the private camps to provide holiday accommodation for the masses of the country. If the Government camps are highly successful, as in course of time they are bound to be, that will engender the holiday spirit throughout the whole community, and I can see nothing but good coming to the private camp movement as a result of the expansion of the Government proposals. Failing these proposals, and without the expansion of them, the holiday-with-pay movement, and indeed the holiday-without-pay movement, would come to an end. The hon. Members who have put down this new Clause certainly have been extremely short sighted. The new Clause provides that the camp scheme should be restricted to pupils in State-aided schools, in consultation with the appropriate education authorities. I say quite frankly that, as far as the County of Durham is concerned—and I have it on the authority of the chairman of the county council— unless there is additional State aid to that which is provided, only a small number of the school-children in the County of Durham will be able to take advantage of the provision of these new camp schools While the schemes for the evacuation of the civilian population to be undertaken in harmony with the provisions of the Civil Defence Act will no doubt function, it is a certainty that even that will be jibbed at by many of the poorer local authorities, which thereby will have additional burdens placed upon both rent and rates. I think we may justly ask—and no doubt the Government will see to it that their supporters vote in the proper way—that this Amendment should be rejected, in the interests of the persons for whom it has been moved, but more in the interests of the general body of citizens of this country.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I also was interested in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens). I do not think I have ever heard a speech which was so contradictory in itself. He told us that we were all mistaken if we thought that these boards would let out the camps at reduced rates and that they would want to charge the highest rates, and then he went on to tell us that these camps,

because of the fact that they were subsidised by the Government, would be in serious competition with the ordinary camps. He can square that as he likes, but it makes no impression on this side of the House. There was, however, one point on which I was in complete agreement with the hon. and learned Member, and that was when he said that the Parliamentary Secretary was talking rubbish. I want to direct attention to a situation that already exists and to bring home to the hon. Members for Blackpool (Mr. Robinson), and Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), an understanding of the fact that these camps exist. If those hon. Members want to see a really well conducted, well set out, well organised camp on one of the most beautiful sites that this country can provide, let them go to bonnie Scotland, and there, on the Isle of Bute, they will see the Co-operative camp, set on the top of the hills, a camp that has been run for a large number of years, a camp that is crowded all the summer season. But three or four years ago a community centre in Scotland opened another camp, about two minutes away from the Co-operative camp, and every season since, week after week, that holiday camp has been crowded with unemployed families. But does the fact that these unemployed families are there mean that they are in competition with the other camp? Are the Co-operatives going to raise an outcry as a consequence? No.
If hon. Members will take their minds back to the report submitted last year by the Statutory Committee on Unemployment, they will find the committee stating that they cannot increase benefits because wages are too low. If the unemployed are entitled to a holiday camp financed by a community centre, and they are entitled to a holiday, why should not these poorer paid workers, whose wages are at the same level as the rates of unemployment pay, be provided with a holiday camp? Why should not we have these camps situated in different parts of the country? I do not want to develop the argument which was developed by the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Creech Jones), to the effect that the more you extend the holiday spirit and the more you encourage people to go to these camps, the wider the area of appeal for those who have private camps; but let any hon. Member of this House go up to the Isle of Bute and see these two camps,


practically bordering on each other, with no such thing as competition. It is an entirely new kind of people there who are getting holidays and who have never experienced a holiday like it before. It is one of the most desirable developments that could be imagined.
There are so many millions of workers in this country who cannot afford a holiday when it comes in the summer. Even if they get a holiday with pay, it is often impossible for them to save up during the year, what with their heavy rents and instalments on furniture, and there are so many of them who can scarcely find the money with which to buy food, let alone save up for a holiday. Therefore, I cannot understand why hon. Members can take up such an attitude and see the question of camps from only the most narrow viewpoint of the immediate profit of a particular camp owner. The Minister tried to explain away the term "rough and ready," but he knows that he was talking about the children of the working class and that in his mind was the thought of rough and ready, that anything is good enough for them. He would never have used that term if he had been talking about public schools and public school boys. That is what we are up against with so many of the hon. Members opposite.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft was absolutely astounded when he was told that there were poor people in this country who could not afford a holiday. There are millions of them in this country who cannot afford the 35s., 40s. or 45s. a week to go to these camps. When we are talking about these matters and suggesting organisations that ought to be considered, why do we always hear about the Boy Scouts and never about the Young Communist League? When we are considering these camps, I suggest that we should make it clear that they should be open, not only to the Boy Scouts and the Boys Brigade, but also to the Young Communist League, and I guarantee that if you got the members of the Young Communist League in these camps, it would develop them educationally and in every other way.

9.53 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have been amazed, in listening to the arguments put forward in favour of this proposed new Clause, to

find that the vested interests of the seaside proprietors have played such an important part in the Debate, because I think that in the long run even those interests cannot but see that the development of these camps, if it should come about on the lines suggested, would be to their advantage. But what surprises me more than that is that they should have lost the opportunity some little time ago, when a Debate was taking place in a full House, of putting that same point. If the arguments that have been used by the hon. and learned member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), as well as by the hon. Members for Blackpool (Mr. Robinson) and Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus), had anything in them at all, those arguments could have been used with much greater force in dealing with the question of the Territorial Army and the Territorial camps. I never heard a word, when it was proposed to double the number of Territorials and, I presume, to increase the camping facilities for them, to the effect that it was unfair to the camps that had been provided by the seaside private authorities. Surely it will, for those people are going, with pay, for a fortnight's training in the summer. If objections are to be raised to the workers, who cannot afford to visit one of the other types of camps, going to a State camp, there should have been some objection from the same vested interest when it was proposed to increase the holidays of those workers who will be enjoying holidays in the Territorial camps. Surely, that is reasonable. We shall need far more camps than have been suggested or even thought of.

The Deputy-Chairman: That point is not in order on this new Clause, which is concerned not with the number of camps but with the use of the proposed camps.

Mr. Tomlinson: The argument is that the Clause cannot possibly apply in regard to the camps that have been provided, and, therefore, on your Ruling, I suggest that the Clause is out of order. It seems to me that the number of school children who will be waiting to accept these facilities and the number of local educational authorities who will be waiting with open arms to utilise these: camps when they are ready, will make it unnecessary to consider the question of using them for workpeople. Then why the fear that has been expressed? It is fear born


of the idea that the camps, which are ostensibly being built because of the fact that we have been brought face to face with the crisis and the possibility of the evacuation of school children, have become a necessity, and in order to save our face we have to devise means of using them through the whole year, even if there is no crisis and no question of evacuation. I charge the Minister with putting that point second, and not first. The need for the school camp has been there all the time, and now in order to save our face and to make an impression in an emergency we are proposing to utilise these camps. Then the vested interests come along and say, at the last minute, that if we are to have a war, let it come, but do not let it interfere with profits; let us have a Clause in this Bill to restrict the camps to children, in order to prevent profits from being interfered with.

9.58 p.m.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: I support the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. R. Robinson) on this Clause, and I do not apologise for doing so. One would think from the arguments used by hon. Members opposite that it is some sort of crime or misdemeanour to speak for one's constituency. I do not take that view. That is why we are here, provided that a constituency's interest does not clash with the national interests. My hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the Clause have put a point of view which is very seriously felt in seaside resorts. Camps are growing up rapidly. There is a great deal of commercial competition going on. Some of the camps are defacing the countryside and the sea coast. Now, on the top of that, we are told that the State is coming in to add to the number.
I have said all along that we cannot oppose this Bill in the national interest. The Preamble states that the Bill has two purposes, to provide school camps in peace-time and refugee camps in time of war. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary was not able to see his way to give some encouragement and hope to us, particularly as he agreed with the point of view of the hon. Member for Blackpool. If the Bill is intended to be what the Preamble represents it to be, there can be no objection to circumscribing the purposes of the Bill to the objects which the Preamble sets out. I hope the Govern-

ment will see their way to accept the Clause. We are a small country and there is compulsory acquisition of land going on in all directions—land for army camps, holiday camps and so on—

The Deputy-Chairman: I am afraid the hon. Member is out of order. We are discussing on this new Clause the use of the camps, and not the acquisition of land.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: With respect, my argument was that we were adding another factor to what is already in existence, and I thought that I might be in order in making the suggestion that we do not want any further provision of this sort if we can. avoid it.

The Deputy-Chairman: The question of whether we should or should not have more camps is not in order on this Clause.

Sir H. Morris-Jones: In the constituency which I represent we should strongly object to the State coming into socialised competition with the system of camps which already exist, and to add to the multiplicity of camps which are becoming a growing evil in many directions.

10.2 p.m.

Mr. Poole: It was perhaps an unfortunate use of language by the Parliamentary Secretary to speak of rough-and-ready camps, but I hope that if anyone else speaks for the Government he will take steps to clear up the unfortunate phrases that were used. It will be very regrettable if it goes out to the public Press that these camps have been described by the Parliamentary Secretary as rough-and-ready. The statement was also made that these camps will not be so good as lodging houses. I do not know whether the Minister understands the meaning of the term "lodging houses" which will be used in many parts of the country. I am wondering whether he realises that parents will not be prepared to let their children be evacuated unless they are assured that they are going to places where it is desirable that they should be housed, and whether they will consider the rough-and-ready camps which are not as good as lodging houses are suitable places to which their children should be evacuated.
I hope we shall have an assurance that these camps are the camps which the Preamble says they ought to be, that is, permanent camps. It cannot be said


that rough-and-ready camps, or camps not so good as lodging houses, are permanent camps. I hope that someone from the Government front bench will remove the misconception which has arisen and will give the assurance that the camps to be constructed will be permanent camps, and that they will be in accord with anything that private enterprise has been able to accomplish up to the present time. We do not want rough-and-ready camps. We have far too many rough-and-ready camps already. I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones), because he ought to know something about rough-and-ready camps. If he will survey the coastline from Rhyl he will see something of the roughness and readiness of camps.

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not hear the Minister's original remark about "rough-and-ready," but I would point out that this new Clause does not deal with the condition of the camps but with the use of the camps.

Mr. Poole: . I bow to your Ruling, Colonel Clifton Brown, but I may be permitted to follow up a point which was made by an hon. Member opposite, that we should not allow the extension of these camps to interfere with the protection at present given to those who have, it is said, invested millions in private camps. I do not know whether the word "millions" is an exaggeration or not, but I am concerned not so much with the people who have invested money in this private enterprise as with the people who go to these camps and with the conditions which I know to exist in some so-called holiday camps. Some of the camps on the North Wales coast call for the most adequate protection for the people who go to them. The sanitation system is disgraceful and disgusting and it is an insult to expect people to go to them. It is obtaining people's money under false pretences to call those places holiday resorts. The only sanitation system in some of them is to discharge the contents of the lavatories on the foreshore, to be washed away by the tide while people bathe there. One wonders whether such places are entitled to be called health resorts.
I do not think, however, that there need be any fear with regard to the competition which will be offered by the proposed camps. There is complete pro-

tection. The companies who will run these camps will be called upon to pay for them. The money which is raised by way of loan to provide the camps will have to be repaid on a 20-year basis at 4 per cent. interest. Therefore the camps have to be paid for by the people who will use them, and it is a narrow approach to the problem to suggest that there is danger of destroying some of the value of private enterprise camps. It is a very short-sighted policy and indicates a narrow outlook on life. I wonder whether we appreciate the value which these camps will be to the industrial workers of the Midlands and of South Wales, many of whom have not known a holiday for years, and who could never have a holiday at the prices which private camps require, however cheap they may be.
I wonder whether we appreciate the value to the general health of the community of allowing the workers to find an outlet not necessarily in Blackpool or Lowestoft. I do not know that there is any particular value in the air of either place. I have been to Blackpool and I suggest that the air which blows across Cannock Chase in Staffordshire is as fine as any in Blackpool or Lowestoft, and I hope it will be possible to have one of these camps at Cannock Chase. The value to the health of live community of these camps cannot be calculated in pounds, shillings and pence. It is a question of the general standard of health of the working class, many of whom will be given for the first time an opportunity of breathing God's fresh air in the country with their families, and of realising what it is to relax and recuperate, in order to be fit again for the intensive industrial struggle of to-day. I hope that nothing will be put in the way of using the camps to the fullest extent. Naturally the children come first, but we should also keep the way open to using these camps for those industrial workers to whom they offer the only prospect of a holiday.

Mr. R. Robinson: My hon. Friends and I appreciate very much such assurances as were given by the Parliamentary Secretary. We wish they had gone further, and we hope that in whatever future action he may take, he will not be influenced by the Socialist arguments of some of the hon. Members who have spoken. In the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Motion.

Hon. Members: No.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 112.]

Orders of the Day — PATENTS AND DESIGNS (LIMITS OF TIME) BILL [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

10.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Cross): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill deals with the times within which certain acts must be performed at the Patent Office, mainly in connection with applications for grants and renewals of patents for inventions. Where a time limit is laid down by the Patents and Designs Acts or Rules there is generally also provision for the extension of the time by the Comptroller within further limits, usually on payment of some prescribed fee. Where no express provision to the contrary exists, the Patent Office have in practice allowed such extension of time even where application for the extension has not been made until after the period permissible apart from extension has expired. A judgment of the Patents Appeal Tribunal has shown that in one case this practice is wrong and may have resulted in the invalidating of patents granted in such circumstances. However, the Patent Office practice in this respect, which has been followed for many years and has become well established, has been found very convenient to applicants for patents, because, in the first place, it gives them more time to decide whether it is worth while to pay extension fees and otherwise proceed with an application for a patent to which some objection has been made and, in the second place, since the application for extension need only be made if and when the complete specification is refiled, it avoids the necessity for making an additional approach to the Patent Office and thus the danger of omitting to do so. We therefore propose in Clause 2 of the Bill to establish this practice as correct for the future. At the same time, the Bill deals with other cases under the Patents and Designs Acts where extensions of time are permissible and where

there is no express statement as to whether application for extension must be made while the main period is still running or whether the application can be made within the period of the permissible extension.
Clause 2 also deals with another old-established practice at the Patent Office concerning acceptance of complete specifications. Where a complete specification has been returned to the applicant for amendment, but has been refiled only at the very end of the period allowed for its acceptance, that is to say, without leaving sufficient time within the period for the examination of the specification, the practice has been to examine the refiled specification as soon as possible, and, if it is found in order, to accept it "as of" the last day of the period allowed. Doubts have been expressed as to the validity of this practice, which is, however, very convenient for applicants and is very well established. Applicants thus can utilise to the full the statutory acceptance period for amending their specifications. Therefore, the Bill redrafts the present Section 8A so as to conserve these advantages.
Let me go briefly into a little more detail on the Clauses. Clause 1 redrafts Section 5 of the Acts and makes it clear that the month's extension of time beyond the 12 months which are allowed for leaving complete specifications may be asked for at any time before the end of that month. Clause 2 amends and entirely redrafts Section 8A of the Acts relating to the time for acceptance of a complete specification. According to Section 8A as it stands, unless the complete specification is accepted within 18 months from the date of the application the application becomes void except in certain circumstances connected with appeals. There is, however, a proviso that the time for acceptance shall be extended by a period not exceeding three months if application there for is made and certain fees are paid. As I have mentioned, it has been the practice of the Patent Office for many years to allow extensions of time to applicants for refiling specifications even where the extensions have not been asked for until after the period of permissible extension has begun to run. This is an established practice which has been found convenient to applicants and the Clause


adopts it under proviso (a) to Subsection (5), read in conjunction with Sub-sections (1) and (2).
This Clause next deals with the case where an amended complete specification is refiled within the period allowed, but too late for examination within that period. Under the Section as redrafted the period allowable is not, as in the present Act, stated to be for acceptance of the complete specification, an act which must be performed by the Comptroller, but for putting the application in order, which must be done by the applicant. Subsection (3) makes it clear that, if the applicant has put his application in order within the period, even at the last moment, acceptance may be made by the Comptroller as soon as may be thereafter. Sub-section (5) removes doubts as to the time when the extended period allowed for putting an application in order actually terminates in a case where an appeal from a decision of the Comptroller is pending or possible and the time for having the application in order would otherwise expire. Sub-section (4) preserves the existing power to allow, at the request of the applicant, a limited postponement of acceptance of the specification even where the application is in order.
Clause 3 makes it clear, in connection with a number of cases in which extensions of time can be allowed, whether the application for such extensions must be made before, or can be made after, the period of permissible extension has begun to run. Clause 4 contains provisions as to failure to comply with certain time limits in the past. Sub-section (1) is intended to prevent patents and extensions of the registration of designs from being held to be invalid merely because some act was done in the past at a time which might under existing Acts and Rules be held to have been too late; in other words, it validates the past. Sub-section (2) validates the present. It validates existing applications when it might otherwise be held that the Patent Office practice in regard to time limits rendered those applications void.
It will be seen that the main purpose of the Bill is to validate long-established practices of the Patent Office in regard to time limits. One of these practices which I have already mentioned as one very convenient to applicants has been

shown by a recent Judgment to be wrong. By this Bill we establish that practice as correct in future. We also take the opportunity in this Bill of putting beyond doubt other practices of the Patent Office in regard to time limits. The Measure is a necessary one in order to ensure the validity of many existing patents, and it it also in my submission a desirable one so as to put beyond any doubt the validity of patents which may be granted in the future which may be affected by questions concerned with time limits. It is not, I hope, a controversial Bill and I trust that the House will be willing readily to give it a Second Reading.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Hendersons: The provisions of this Bill are of a highly technical character and, as the Minister has just said, deal with points of procedure in applying for patents and extensions of time, with which patent agents are, perhaps, more familiar than lawyers. The general effect of the Amendments contained in the Bill, so far as I can understand them, is to specify the duty of the applicant for the patent with greater clarity and precision, and to give a greater degree of latitude in point of time to the performance of the duties of the examiners in the Patent Office which, as the learned Solicitor-General knows very well, are extremely onerous. So far as I can gather, the Bill embodies no departure in policy, it is in no sense controversial, and should be allowed to have a Second Reading.

Orders of the Day — PREVENTION OF FRAUD (INVESTMENTS) BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Licensing of dealers in securities.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 1, after "servant," insert "or agent."

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the next immediately following deal with the same subject matter. They have as their purpose the insertion after the word "servant" of the words "or agent" in lines 1 and 6. It might be possible for the holder of a principal's licence to circumvent the provision by employing not employés in the direct sense, who are required to have representatives' licences, but to employ agents on a commission basis.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that these two Amendments raise the question of Privilege. The House can waive it if it chooses to do so.

Question put, and agreed to. —[Special Entry.]

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 2, line 32, agreed to.

CLAUSE 2—(Saving of certain transactions.)

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 37, leave out from "of" to the end of
line 38.

10.25 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Terence O'Connor): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment is the first of a series dealing with the same subject-matter, and if it be for the convenience of the House and within the Rules of Order I hope I may, in dealing with this comparatively small Amendment, give an outline of the effect of the Amendments which it is proposed to make to Clause 16 and to the Second Schedule. This Amendment looks forward to those later Amendments.
As the Bill arrived in the House of Commons the provision as regards unit trusts was that a unit trust scheme was an authorised unit trust scheme when it had a trustee who was an approved trustee within the meaning of the Bill, that is to say, a corporation with certain financial responsibilities. In the Committee of the House of Commons it was urged that some effect should be given to the report of the Anderson Committee which recommended that power should be inserted for the removal of the managers if they became

unsatisfactory and for the control of advertisements issued by the management, particularly with regard to the yield of the units. In order to make some attempt to meet that point of view, Sub-section (3) of Clause 16 was introduced. When the Bill had passed through the House of Commons and went to another place recommendations were made and representations were received from various quarters against the provisions in Sub-section (3) in the wide form in which it then existed and, as a result of consultations with all the interests, the bankers and unit trusts, it was arranged that the present scheme should take the place of the scheme that was provided for in the Bill as amended in the House of Commons.
Broadly speaking, the effect of the Amendments is that instead of approving the trustee, the Board of Trade should approve the unit trust scheme, but that is providing that the scheme itself fulfils certain conditions which are set out in the Schedule. One of the conditions is that the trust must embody the provision laid down in the Bill, so that in a sense it is arriving at the same conclusion by a different method. Secondly, the scheme will have to be such that effective control of the management is secured independently of the trustee. That was also, I think, a recommendation of the Anderson Committee. The scheme must also be such as to secure that property subject to the trust is vested in a trustee, under a deed providing, to the satisfaction of the Board, for certain definite matters, which appear in the Schedule and which is the last of the Amendments upon the Paper.
That Schedule will provide for various things, such, for example, as the manner of fixing the sale price of units, the issue of unit certificates and the steps that are to be taken to ensure the vesting of the property in the trustees. It will ensure that the trustees are satisfied as to the terms of the advertisements, and that the fund for defraying the expenses of management of the trust is kept separately. A scheme will have to provide for audit and also for the retirement of managers in cases where it is desirable, in the interest of the holders of units in the trust. Power is given to the Board of Trade by the new proviso in Sub-section (1) of Clause 16 to allow variations from the strict requirements of the


Schedule in places where the variations are established practice.
Although the unit trusts were, to put it mildly, not entirely enthusiastic about, and certainly not uniformly in agreement with, the imposition of this method upon them, the Government feel that all these requirements are reasonable ones to insert in any trust deed. There would, of course, be power, in the case of trustees who were not satisfied to carry on their trusts subject to the provisions incorporated in the Schedule, to apply to the court for relief from their trust, and, on such application, it would be open to the court to make any order suitable to the occasion. For example, I understand that it is a common circumstance that the trustees receive in advance a lump sum for the performance of their duties, and, having received that lump sum, it would obviously be equitable in some cases that the court should give directions, if a trustee wished to relinquish his function, as to what should be done by the trustee in relation to the lump sum. I hope that with these few observations, in which, although they have been brief, I have attempted to cover the scope of the Amendments that have been made in another place throughout the Bill, the House will see that what has been attempted is to approach by a different and perhaps preferable method the object at which this House aimed in amending the original Bill.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: I have followed as well as I could, not only the speech of the Solicitor-General, but the detailed criticisms which were made with regard to these Amendments in another place. I am bound to say that I think the method of presentation chosen in another place is a considerable improvement on the method adopted during the Committee stage in this House. It was always a matter of regret to me that the very careful investigation of the Anderson Committee, of which I was a member, had not found favour with the Government sufficiently to form the subject of a Bill, and at first I was very sceptical whether any Amendments of this particular Measure would suffice to introduce the main ideas of the recommendations of the Anderson Committee. An ingenious method has been adopted of

incorporating a great deal of what was valuable in the Anderson Committee's Report in this Measure, which deals with much larger and to a certain extent different subjects, but there are two or three questions that I should like to put to the Solicitor-General, because I should like to know for my own benefit, and I think the House also would like to know, what will be the total effect of these Amendments if they are carried.
In the first place, I would ask the Solicitor-General whether these Amendments in their totality will embrace all the main proposals of the Anderson Committee? Of course, there were certain proposals of a financial character which obviously lie outside the scope of this Measure, and with which, I hope we may deal on another occasion; but the regulative proposals were all such as seemed to me suitable for incorporating in a Government Measure, and I should be glad to be told whether in effect and in substance all of them are here incorporated, or whether there are any substantial proposals which are left outside. So far as I am able to judge, there are few substantial proposals not included, but I should be glad to have the opinion of the Solicitor-General on that point.
My second question is, what would be the result of any trust refusing, or neglecting, to form itself along the lines desired by the Board and provided for in the Schedule that has been proposed in another place. I understand that the first effect would be that the Board of Trade would not approve of the unit: trust. What would follow as a result of that? Does it mean that the unit trust would be acting illegally in appealing for subscriptions? And, assuming that it persisted in that illegality, would it come under any penalty; or what precisely would be the method of compelling it to conform to the scheme which the Board of Trade would insist upon?
The third question I would like to put is, what is going to be the position of those unit trusts already in existence which have not been formed under this scheme? As I understand it, they would be deemed to have included the provisions in the articles of the two companies, the general company and the trustee company, in creating this trust. I am not clear whether I am right in that. Perhaps the House will be told what would be the


position of those unit trusts already in existence before the passage of this Bill. Subject to satisfactory answers on those three points, I can only say that I think this is an ingenious method of regulating trusts, and 1 do not think there can be any opposition from this side to this group of Amendments.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Spens: May I ask one question of my hon. and learned Friend? The Amendments, it appears to me, do carry great benefit, in that whereas on the Committee stage some of us were rather anxious because it appeared to us that the privileges which have been given to unit trusts depended solely on the status of the trustee, these Amendments carry out the recommendation of the Anderson Committee that there should be some control over the managements. The control, if I understand the Amendments aright, is left a little vague. Paragraph (b) of the Amendment which is to be inserted in page 24 of the Bill provides
that the scheme is such that the effective control over the affairs of the corporation which is the manager under the scheme is and will be exercised independently of the corporation which is the trustee under the scheme.
I do not know what is in the mind of the draftsman of that Sub-section. What is meant by
control over the affairs of the corporation which is the manager under the scheme is and will be exercised independently of the corporation which is the trustee under the scheme"?
To whom does that Amendment refer? Does it mean the shareholders of the managing company, or what is the sort of control? Who is to exercise the control? Or does it mean that the trustee of the unit trust will have some control over the affairs of the corporation? That is the only point on these Amendments about which there is any real doubt or difficulty, and if my hon. and learned Friend can clear up what is meant by them, I shall be very grateful.

10.41 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: In answer to the question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethwick-Lawrence) with regard to the question of the Anderson Committee's Report, the Bill embraces the essential and important proposals in substance though not in form. That is the

main assurance which I know the right hon. Gentleman requires. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out quite rightly that the immediate result of a unit trust neglecting to re-form in the way suggested would be a refusal of approval, and in practice refusal of approval would effectively prevent it from carrying on business. It could not circularise and it could not expand. The existing unit-holder would not be prejudiced, but it would prevent any continuing activity on the part of the trust. The right hon. Gentleman also asked a question concerning the position of existing unit trusts. He asked whether, if they did not comply with the Schedule, they would have to make a supplemental trust deed to enable them to conform with the Schedule. Provision to enable them to do that will be found on page 7 of the Lords Amendments which relate to page 25 of the Bill. I must apologise to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) that in trying to find the answers to the other questions. I could not quite place the particular Amendments to which he was referring.

Mr. Spens: If my hon. and learned Friend will look at page 6 of the Lords Amendments relating to Clause 24 of the Bill he will see, in paragraph (b), the particular Amendment which was introduced in another place. I am asking what exactly is meant by the words:
effective control over the affairs of the co-operation which is the manager under the scheme is and will be exercised independently of the corporation which is the trustee under the scheme.
By whom is that control to be exercised? Does it mean that there must be independent shareholders in any corporation, or that there must be some provision under which the unit-holders shall have some special powers over the affairs of the managing corporation? What exactly do these words mean? They appear to be so very vague and wide at the moment.

The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend. The matter appears in one or two other places, but it is an attempt to deal with a particular kind of unit trust which is very rare. It is the kind of trust where the trustee and manager are one and the same person. We have had brought to our notice at least one particular instance. In every other respect it might be said to pass through the mesh. This particular pro-


vision is to make it clear that there must be an independence which enables control to be exercised by the one or the other.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 3, line 11, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 12, leave out paragraph (b) and insert:
(b) issuing any prospectus to which Section thirty-five or Section three hundred and fifty-four of the Companies Act, 1929, applies,
(c) issuing any document relating to securities of a corporation incorporated in Great Britain which is not a registered company, being a document which—

(i) would, if the corporation were a registered company, be a prospectus to which Section thirty-five of the Companies Act, 1929, applies, and
(ii) contains all the matters which, by virtue of Section three hundred and fifty-four of the said Act, it would have to contain if the Corporation were a company incorporated outside Great Britain and the document were a prospectus issued by that company, and

(d) issuing any form of application for shares in, or debentures of, a corporation together with—

(i) a prospectus which complies with the requirements of Section thirty-five or Part XII of the Companies Act, 1929, or
(ii) in the case of a corporation incorporated in Great Britain which is not a registered company, a document containing all the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (c) of this Sub-section."

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The intention of paragraph (b) of Clause 2 (2) in the form in which it was passed provided that the issue of prospectuses and invitations to subscribe for shares should be outside the restrictions of Clause 1, and the new paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), simply give effect to this intention in a more precise form. There is this additional point with regard to paragraph (d) that is rectifies an omission by extending this provision to applications for shares and debentures.

CLAUSE 4.—(Deposits or guarantees required in connection with applications for principal's licences.)

Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 37, leave out "and."

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the next one deal with the same point. They are very little more than drafting Amendments. The object is to ensure that the Board of Trade shall have power to realise securities which have been deposited with them in bankruptcy, and that the proceeds shall be handed over to the trustee banks.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 5, line 35, agreed to.

CLAUSE 6.—(References to tribunal of inquiry.)

Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 37, leave out "in the event of his incapacity or resignation."

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The object of this Amendment is to remove any doubt which might exist as to whether a member of the tribunal should be removed for some other reason than those specified, that is incapacity or resignation. He may be removed for misconduct or for some other sufficient cause. The point is met by the omission of these words.

CLAUSE 8.—(Information to be furnished to Board of Trade by holders of licences.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 12, at the end, insert "in writing to the Board of Trade."

Mr. Cross: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This and the next Amendment deal with the same subject-matter They place on a corporation holding a licence the obligation of notifying to the Board of Trade, in addition to the names and addresses, the nationality of any person who becomes a director. By the second Amendment there is an obligation to notify the fact that such a person has no nationality at all, if such be the case.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 10, line 17, agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Publication of names of holders of principals' licences.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 26, after "force" insert:
and also—

(a) in relation to any holder of a principal's licence who is not a corporation, his nationality or the fact that he has no nationality, or
(b) in relation to any holder of a principal's licence who is a corporation, the country under the law of which the corporation is incorporated,"

Mr. Cross: I beg to move; "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is parallel to the Amendments which have just been accepted on the previous Clause. The one applies to directors and corporations, and this Amendment applies to the holder of a principal's licence.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 12, line 30, agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Provisions as to building societies.)

Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 32, leave out "in the public interest so to do" and insert:
so to do in the interests of persons who have invested or deposited or may invest or deposit money with the society.

10.50 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The purpose is to make it clear that the Registrar, acting under the powers conferred upon him under the Clause, will act where he considers it expedient in the interest of persons who have invested or deposited money with the building society concerned rather than where he considers it to be expedient in the interest of the public at large. I think that way always the intention of the House.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: Does that mean that where it is expedient in the public interest the Registrar will be unable to act unless it is also expedient in the interest of persons who have invested or deposited? Has the Amendment the effect of narrowing the power that the Registrar would have had under the Bill as it left the House?

Mr. Cross: I am unable to envisage circumstances in which it might be in the public interest to take these steps but was not in the first place expedient in the interest of persons who had invested or deposited money with the building societies. It seems to me that the point does not arise.

Mr. Silverman: I should have thought it was possible to conceive cases, rare I admit, where it might be advisable to interfere on grounds of general public policy, even though the interests of the people owning shares were not directly affected.

Mr. Bellenger: With whom does the initiative lie? Does it lie entirely with the Registrar or can it be possible for any interested person, a member of the public or one who has invested or deposited money, to bring to the Registrar's notice certain circumstances on which the Registrar might deem it expedient to act?

Mr. Cross: It is entirely open to a member of the public to bring such matters to the attention of the Registrar, but the action outlined in the Clause can only take place on the actual initiative of the Registrar.

Mr. Silverman: It is difficult to see why it should be necessary to narrow it down in any way. It may be that the public interest cannot be involved unless the narrower interest is involved, but in that case the words as they originally appeared would have sufficiently covered the point. If there are other cases where the public interest might be involved, is not the effect of the Amendment to narrow it down and possibly produce the result that a member of the public who did not happen to have an interest himself in the society might not have any locus standi or any right to be heard by the Registrar?

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: It appears off-hand that we are losing something in losing the question of public interest in this matter. On the other hand, it may be that there is something in the proposition that all the persons referred to in the Amendment should be considered. Would it not be possible to have both, "in the public interest" and "in the interest of persons who have invested or have deposited" because it does not seem to me


that these words saver the public interest, and possibly the words "public interest" do not cover the particular interest of those named in the Amendment. Would it not be possible to include both by the words "one or the other"?

10.55 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: It is a very drastic power that is here being accorded to the Registrar. By the exercise of this power, he can effectively prevent the activity of a building society, because he can prevent it from enlarging its capital or going into the market for funds. That is a very drastic power indeed, and it is not a power that one wants to leave too much at large in the hands of any official, however responsible he may be. It is one thing to say that this official, who is charged under the Building Societies Acts with the custodianship of the interests of the investors in building societies—those who lend their money to them—should act when their interests are endangered; but it is a bigger thing, and a much more difficult thing, to leave him at large with a power to act in the public interest. I have not the references in my mind, but I am fairly certain that if the public interest as a whole were endangered, there would be found to be ample provisions under the Building Societies Acts under which an application to the court could be made for dealing with the subject on that footing. This is limiting it to the case with which the Clause attempts to deal—the case where the depositors themselves find their interests endangered.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 16, line 31, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 16, line 34, leave out "some commodity" and insert "any property other than securities."

10.57 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment has as its object to make transactions in currency subject to this Clause. The Amendment brings paragraph (c) into line with paragraph (b).

CLAUSE 13.—(Restriction on distribution of circulars relating to investments.)

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert:
(a) in relation to any distribution of a prospectus to which Section thirty-five or Section three hundred and fifty-four of the Companies Act, 1929, applies, or in relation to any distribution of a document relating to securities of a corporation incorporated in Great Britain which is not a registered company, being a document which—

(i) would if the corporation were a registered company, be a prospectus to which the said Section thirty-five applies, and
(ii) contains all the matters which, by virtue of the said Section three hundred and fifty-four, it would have to contain if the corporation were a company incorporated outside Great Britain and the document were a prospectus issued by that company, or

(b) in relation to any issue of a form of application for shares in, or debentures of, a corporation together with—

(i) a prospectus which complies with the requirements of Section thirty-five or Part XII of the Companies Act, 1929, or
(ii) in the case of a corporation incorporated in Great Britain which is not a registered company, a document containing all the matters mentioned in sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (a) of this Sub-section,

or in connection with a bona fide invitation to a person to enter into an underwriting agreement with respect to the shares or debentures, or

Mr. Cross: I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is, in the main, a drafting Amendment similar to the Amendment which has already been accepted in page 3, lines 11 and 12. There is, however, this added feature about it, that by the last three lines of the Amendment we exempt from the circularisation restrictions forms of application for shares which are distributed in connection with a bona fide invitation to a person to enter into an underwriting agreement. Under the Clause as originally passed in the House, there was no exemption from the circularisation provisions for such documents. I should add that forms of application for shares, when accompanying a bona fide invitation for underwriting, are excluded from the prospectus provisions of the Companies Act.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 17, line 31, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 17, line 33, at the end, insert:
and shall not apply in relation to any distribution of documents which is permitted by the Board of Trade.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The purpose of the Amendment is to make provision for legitimate circularisation which is not exempted under the Bill. It is in fact impossible to frame the prohibition of circularisation in such terms as to be quite certain that legitimate business shall not be interfered with, unless one at the same time opens the door to what is termed share-pushing. It is unsafe to exempt circulars offering shares for subscription which by a proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 35 of the Companies Act are excluded from the requirements of that Act. Those are circulars offering share subscriptions which are not sent to the general public. As I have indicated, a general exemption would open the door to possible abuse. At the same time it may occur that a private company, on an increase of capital, might desire by circular to invite subscriptions from a limited number of persons not already members of the company who might be interested in it, and we have no desire to interfere with a legitimate practice of that kind. The object of the Amendment is to meet this and any similar difficulties that may occur in future by providing that the Board of Trade may, in their discretion, free from the circularisation restrictions documents not at present excluded but which are in the interests of legitimate business.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 18, line 29, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 34, at the end, insert:

"(viii) made or given with respect to any securities in connection only with a sale or proposed sale of those securities by auction, or."

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

An Amendment was moved on the Report stage in this House by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) to exclude from the circularisation restrictions of Clause 13 invita-

tions or information made or given with a view to the sale of securities by auction. That Amendment was withdrawn on my right hon. Friend giving an assurance that he would consider the matter, and as a result of that consideration it appeared that auctioneers' catalogues could be excluded from the circularisation restrictions without danger of abuse. If an auctioneer were to engage in frequent sales of stocks and shares, that would be carrying on the business of dealing in securities and would have to be licensed, but if he only sold shares occasionally in the ordinary course of his general business as an auctioneer and disposed of shares, say, in some local company for which there was no outside market, it does not appear likely that any harm would result in allowing him to include particulars of such shares in his catalogues, provided, of course, that the particulars were published solely for the purposes of the auction.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: As I understand the hon. Member's explanation, the question simply revolves round the point whether the occasions on which the auctioneer offers stocks and shares for sale are frequent or infrequent. But might it not be that perhaps at one or two sales during the year large blocks of shares could be offered and the damage would be done possibly not in the number of occasions on which the auctioneer offered them, but in the volume of shares which he offered to the public for sale? I therefore think the reasons which were given on the Report stage for not accepting the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) are still sound to-day, when it is sought to re-introduce the Amendment which was not then accepted. I am not at all impressed by the reasons which the hon. Member has offered in order to induce the House to accept the Amendment.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 19, line 2, agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Stock Exchanges and associations of dealers in securities.)

Lords Amendment: In page 21, line 14, leave out "of all persons" and insert" showing with respect to each person."

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the next two Amendments deal with the same subject. They are virtually drafting Amendments. This Sub-section imposes on recognised Stock Exchanges and recognised associations of dealers in securities the duty of furnishing to the Board of Trade a list of their members, so that the Board may publish such lists. There is an Amendment in line 16 which provides that there shall be supplied
his name and business address and the style under which he carries on business and, if the member is a corporation, the name of each of the directors thereof.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 21, line 24, agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Banks, etc.)

Lords Amendment: In page 22, line 9, leave out from "of" to "manager," in line 11.

11.8 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the one following, and the Amendments on page 24, go with an Amendment of which I spoke earlier. The third of the Amendments on page 22 is consequential on an earlier Amendment. The Amendments on page 24 relate to the unit trust Clause.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: On the unit trust Clause I do not think we have any objection to the proposed Amendments.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 25, line 24, agreed to.

CLAUSE 18.—(Offences committed by corporations.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 5, leave out from "of," to the second "any," in line 6.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The Amendment is to leave out from Clause 18 the words:
Where any offence under this Act committed by a corporation is proved to have

been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any director.

There is a precedent for these words, but they are not very happy words. The mere statement that any neglect on the part of a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the corporation is a criminal offence, is a proposition that causes great doubt in the minds of people who have anything to do with the criminal law. To a large extent the matter is academic, because a conviction in these circumstances would be exceedingly difficult to obtain. The mere words "attributable to any neglect on the part of" would cover the case of say, a man who had put a letter in his pocket which he ought to have posted, or a secretary who has committed some other trifling neglect of duty. It was thought in another place and it seems to the Government, that it would be a rather tall order to retain a criminal sanction against an act of neglect of that kind.

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Silver man: I hope the House will not agree with the Lords in this Amendment. It seems a pity that Amendments of substance should come or ho late, when there is not time for adequate discussion and when many people who might like to exercise a vote, if not a voice, on the principles involved are no longer here. Amendments of the criminal law always seem to come on very late at night in circumstances of difficulty and embarrassment. In this case, there is no adequate reason for interfering with the decision to which this House came. It is true that new principles, or rather new applications of principles in the criminal law have been introduced in this Bill but that has been due to circumstances which necessitated some drastic step by the legislature if easy fraud is to be prevented. There should be no difficulty in proving where an offence has been done with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to the neglect of any of these persons. If an offence has been committed, it does not seem unjust that the responsible officer of the corporation whose consent or connivance or neglect caused it, should be answerable for the consequences of his default.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I did not make it clear that we are not leaving out the words "with the consent or connivance of." Those words remain.

Mr. Silverman: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I had overlooked that fact, and my remarks are therefore confined to the question of neglect. But I must point out how much weaker the Clause will be if we omit these words. The accused person will only have to say, "It looks at first sight as if I had consented to this, but I did not consent. It looks as if I connived at it, bat I did not connive. What looks like consent or connivance was only my neglect I am a director, manager, secretary or other officer of the corporation, and I did not do my job properly, and the result is that an offence has been committed, but do not blame me." He can say, "It is true that I earn my salary as an officer of the corporation and that I did not do my duty, and that there has been a criminal offence, but that is not my fault." The result will be to weaken the Clause immensely and unnecessarily, and I hope the House will not agree with the Lords in this Amendment.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Pet hick-Lawrence: I confess that I am somewhat puzzled as to the effect which will be produced by the omission of these words. The defence offered by the Solicitor-General very far from satisfies me On the other hand, there are other considerations which, if they are correct, will tend to modify the opposition of my hon. Friend. Most of the serious offences in this Bill are offences of commission. That applies in particular to Clause 1, which relates to the licence restrictions; Clause 12, dealing with fraudulent inducements to invest; and Clause 13, restriction on circularisation. So far as these are sins of commission, the reference to neglect cannot affect them, because you cannot commit a sin of commission by neglect. Therefore, I do not suppose the omission of the words relating, to neglect will prevent the penalty falling on the right shoulders for these sins of commission. Therefore, the words really only apply to those offences which are offences of omission and those are minor offences in this Bill.
What some of us are anxious to avoid is to allow what is known as the guinea pig director to escape all responsibility for actions which have been really taken owing to his neglect to interfere. If it is correct: that anything like serious offences can be attributable to the neglect of a

director, it would be a great mistake if these words were omitted. On the other hand, I think my hon. Friend would possibly agree that if the effect of the omission of these words does not release such person from the liability which the Bill as it left this House placed on them, then we might agree to their omission.

11.18 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for pointing out so fairly that it is the fact that this alteration leaves the main offences under the Bill untouched. As he rightly pointed out, offences under Clause 1—licence restrictions; Clause 12—fraudulently inducing people to invest money; Clause 13—circularising restrictions; Clause 8, Sub-section (2), which deals with information to be furnished to the Board of Trade in relation to licences—all these are serious matters under the Bill, and therefore quite untouched by this Amendment. The Amendment would deal only with the very minor cases where it is a pure act of neglect or omission with which we are dealing. I will give the right hon. Gentleman reasons why I do not think, if the words remain in, it will make a great deal of difference to the Clause. The courts, in dealing with any case of criminal neglect, always impose an obligation on the prosecution to prove something more than mere neglect.
I argued the leading case on the point in another place not long ago, and it was there laid down that in order to establish neglect criminally you must arrive at something which is tantamount to recklessness. If these words were left in the court, in deciding whether there was any neglect, would be driven in every case to consider the extent to which there had been consent or connivance which would show that the act was the act of a man so reckless as to make it a crime in law. On the face of it, the words appear to go very much further than our ordinary criminal law goes, and it is for that reason, no doubt, that they were moved out in another place. In actual practice, their moving out does not make very much difference. As regards serious crimes, it does not touch the impingement of the criminal law, and, as regards the cases of omission with which the Clause deals, for the reasons I have given in any case in which one could get a con-


viction for neglect one could, I feel confident, get a conviction for connivance and consent.

CLAUSE 21.—(Laying of rules and regulations before Parliament.)

Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 21, at the end, insert:
(2) If either House of Parliament, within the period of forty days beginning with the day on which any such rules or regulations as aforesaid have been laid before that House, resolves that the rules or regulations shall cease to have effect, the rules or regulations shall thereupon become void, without prejudice, however, to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of new rules or regulations.
In reckoning any such period of forty days as aforesaid no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.

11.22 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment makes provision for Parliament by means of an adverse Resolution, to set aside rules or regulations which have been laid before Parliament.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 27, line 12, agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Interpretation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 23, at the end, insert:
the court means, in relation to any industrial and provident society, the court having jurisdiction to wind up the society.

11.23 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

In Clause 10, Sub-section 5, the Registrar has power in certain circumstances to present an order to the court for the winding up of an industrial or provident society, but Part X of the Companies Act provides that the winding-up procedure of that Act shall apply in the case of companies not registered under the Companies Act, and the court having power to wind up an industrial and

provident society is, therefore, the High Court unless the paid-up capital is less than £10,000, in which case it is wound up in the county court.

Lords Amendment: In page 27, line 27, leave out "inviting" and insert "inducing or attempting to induce."

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

By this Amendment the definition of "dealing in securities" is made more comprehensive, so that it will catch a veiled or indirect invitation. We have had in mind the kind of instance where a man may call from house to house, ostensibly selling carpet-sweepers or silk stockings, and may take that opportunity of ingratiating himself with people and informing them that he knows a man who is an excellent adviser on purchasing securities. By moving this Amendment, we shall catch such an individual who would be, in this way, attempting to induce, etc.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 28, line 33, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 28, line 36, after "servant" insert" or agent."

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Mr. Speaker: This Amendment and the similar one on the top of the next page are consequential upon a previous Amendment, to which I have referred before, and raise questions of Privilege.

Mr. Speaker: A Special Entry will be made in the Journals of the House.

Lords Amendment: In page 29, line 17, at the end, insert:
or shares in such an unincorporated building society as is mentioned in Section seven of the Building Societies Act, 1874.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Cross: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is for the purpose of making the definition of shares comprehensive. The Building Societies Act,


1874, is the first Statute incorporating building societies, and societies which existed before that Act are unincorporated bodies. The words proposed to be added ensure that the shares of such societies are included in the definition of shares.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Lieut.-Colonel Kerr.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Eight Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.